The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 55, 56 were read on this motion to/for DismissalDECISION AND ORDER This pre-Answer motion to dismiss the Complaint as against defendants Nextel of New York, Inc. (“Nextel”) and Sprint Corporation (“Sprint”) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), (7) and (8) is granted for the reasons stated herein.BackgroundAccording to the Complaint in this action, filed on July 6, 2018, plaintiff Stone & Broad, Inc. (“Stone”) was the primary tenant of a commercial triple-net lease of the building at 88 Broad Street in lower Manhattan from 1970 until that lease terminated in April 2013 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 22). The landlord of the building is non-party 88 Broad Street, LLC (“the Landlord”), and the net lease at issue is referred to in the Complaint as the Over Lease. Since the inception of the Over Lease in 1932 with Stone’s predecessor, there were a series of assignments and renewals, as well as subleases and sub-subleases, conferring rights and obligations on various parties.After Stone vacated the premises, the Landlord commenced an action in Supreme Court under Index Number 652833/14 entitled 88 Broad Street, LLC v. Stone & Broad, Inc., et al., to recover compensation for damage to the building caused over the years by water, fire, and lack of maintenance and repair and for other wrongdoing, including the failure to pay all rent and additional rent due under the lease and the fraudulent transfer of assets to impair the Landlord’s rights. (A copy of the Second Amended Complaint in that action is attached to the moving papers as Ex C, Doc. 24). That action was resolved by Stipulation So Ordered by Justice Shirley Kornreich and filed on September 13, 2017 pursuant to which Stone agreed to pay the Landlord $750,000 in full settlement of all claims (NYSCEF Doc. No. 99 under Index No. 652833/14).Claiming it was compelled by the terms of the Over Lease to compensate the Landlord for the alleged damages, even though Stone insisted that any damage had been caused by others, Stone commenced this action to recover the $750,000 settlement sum paid plus $184,000 in legal fees allegedly incurred from the parties that purportedly caused the damage. The Complaint includes an extensive list of alleged wrongs by the various defendants, most of whom were subtenants or sub-subtenants. Nextel and Sprint are charged with water damage caused by the improper installation of cell phone equipment on the outside of the building.Other than alleging that Sprint is the parent of Nextel, the Complaint fails to allege any wrongful act or omission by Sprint. As to Nextel, the Complaint references an August 2000 “Communications Tower Agreement” between Nextel and defendant Guliano-Park 88 Broad Street, Inc. (“GP”), the latter being the assignee of the sub-sublease of the entire building as of 2000. Stone claims GP entered into the Nextel Agreement without Stone’s knowledge or consent. Stone adds that Nextel’s contractor Tech Nel Electric, Inc. improperly installed the telecommunications equipment, causing damage to the building that included water infiltration which led to mortar deterioration and the erosion of wooden beams. (Complaint
