Aqua NY of Sea Cliff v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aqua NY of Sea Cliff v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., L.P.

119 A.D.3d 829, 989 N.Y.S.2d 373

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 23, 2014

Docket2012-10961

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 829 (Aqua NY of Sea Cliff v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aqua NY of Sea Cliff v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., L.P., 119 A.D.3d 829, 989 N.Y.S.2d 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for strict products liability and negligence, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered September 6, 2012, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging strict products liability and failure to warn.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether from the complaint’s “four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Beechwood Org., 80 AD3d 643, 649 [2011]; Fishberger v Voss, 51 AD3d 627 [2008]). Although the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference (see Gershon v Goldberg, 30 AD3d 372 [2006]), “bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration” (Riback v Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2007]; see Baron v Galasso, 83 AD3d 626, 628 [2011]), nor are legal conclusions or factual claims which are inherently incredible (see Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 430 [2005]). Applying the above principles here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging strict products liability and failure to warn.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see Fucile v L.C.R. Dev., Ltd., *830 102 AD3d 915 [2013]).

Dillon, J.E, Lott, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for strict products liability and negligence, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered September 6, 2012, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging strict products liability and failure to warn.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether from the complaint’s “four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Beechwood Org., 80 AD3d 643, 649 [2011]; Fishberger v Voss, 51 AD3d 627 [2008]). Although the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference (see Gershon v Goldberg, 30 AD3d 372 [2006]), “bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration” (Riback v Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2007]; see Baron v Galasso, 83 AD3d 626, 628 [2011]), nor are legal conclusions or factual claims which are inherently incredible (see Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 430 [2005]). Applying the above principles here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging strict products liability and failure to warn.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see Fucile v L.C.R. Dev., Ltd., *830 102 AD3d 915 [2013]).

Dillon, J.E, Lott, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 829, 989 N.Y.S.2d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aqua-ny-of-sea-cliff-v-buckeye-pipeline-co-lp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack