Plaintiffs tenants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment on any of the causes of action in their complaint. As to the cause of action for fraud, an arm's length transaction between a landlord and a tenant, as existed here, does not create a fiduciary relationship, and defendant landlord therefore had no affirmative duty to inform prospective tenants that repairs would take the elevator temporarily out of service (see Sehera Food Servs. Inc. v Empire State Bldg. Co. L.L.C., 74 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2010]; Dembeck v 220 Cent. Park S., LLC, 33 AD3d 491, 492 [1st Dept 2006]). Even assuming that the cause of action for fraud rests on a theory that defendants affirmatively misrepresented the elevator's availability during the lease period by, among other things, advertising elevator service on the building website, plaintiffs still did not sustain their burden on the motion, as the record presents an issue of fact whether defendants had the intent to defraud — a necessary element of a fraud claim (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]).