Braverman Greenspun P.C., New York (Drew E. Pakett of counsel), for appellant.

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J), entered March 21, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The allegations in the complaint, as amplified by plaintiff's affidavit and the accompanying exhibits submitted in opposition to defendant's motion, were sufficiently particular to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty (see CPLR 3013; High Definition MRI, P.C. v Travelers Cos., Inc., 137 AD3d 602, 602-603 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Parker Waichman LLP v Squier, Knapp & Dunn Communications, Inc., 138 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2016]). Accepted as true, and afforded every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), they show that defendant board failed to promptly and adequately address plaintiff's continuous complaints of unsanitary water issues in her condominium unit, in breach of their duty to maintain the building's common plumbing and water services.

The allegations that defendant failed to comply with its obligations under the condominium's bylaws to maintain and repair the building's piping and water system sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract. Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff had identified the applicable provisions of the bylaws in the complaint.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.