Bonney v. 5pg, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonney v. 5pg, LLC

55 A.D.3d 648, 864 N.Y.S.2d 791

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 648 (Bonney v. 5pg, LLC) 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

Bonney v. 5pg, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 648, 864 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant 5PG, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated September 20, 2007, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint and the cross claims of the defendant Alten, Inc., insofar as asserted against it, and granted the motion of the defendant Alten, Inc., for leave to amend its answer, among other things, to assert an additional cross claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court should “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Applying these principles, we find that the complaint states cognizable causes of action [649]*649against the appellant, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Dillon, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant 5PG, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated September 20, 2007, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint and the cross claims of the defendant Alten, Inc., insofar as asserted against it, and granted the motion of the defendant Alten, Inc., for leave to amend its answer, among other things, to assert an additional cross claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court should “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Applying these principles, we find that the complaint states cognizable causes of action [649]*649against the appellant, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Dillon, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 648, 864 N.Y.S.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonney-v-5pg-llc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack