ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action in the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.
The defendants 149 Roosevelt Avenue Associates, TTF Roos. Ave. Corp., and Frank Nastasi (hereinafter the appellants), were collectively the sponsor of a condominium complex where the plaintiffs are individual unit owners. The appellants contend that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action in the complaint insofar as asserted against them because, although denominated as a common-law fraud claim, that cause of action is, in actuality, a Martin Act (see General Business Law § 352, et seq.) claim alleging false or deceptive practices in a condominium offering plan. We agree.
Pursuant to the Martin Act, the Attorney-General has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute condominium sponsors who make false statements in condominium offering plans filed thereunder, thereby precluding individual condominium unit owners from having standing to pursue such claims (see CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268; Thompson v. Parkchester Apts. Co., 271 A.D.2d 311; Board of Managers of Fairways at N. Hills Condominium v. Fairways at N. Hills, 150 A.D.2d 32). "While there is still a private cause of action for common-law fraud * * * `private plaintiffs will not be permitted through artful pleading to press any claim based on the sort of wrong given over to the Attorney-General under the Martin Act'" (Thompson v. Parkchester Apts. Co., 249 A.D.2d 68, 68-69, quoting Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Olnick, 213 A.D.2d 200). The fourth cause of action contains just such a defect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the fourth cause of action in the complaint insofar as it was asserted against the appellants.
In light of this determination we need not reach the appellants' remaining contention.
FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.