Cucco v. Chabau Café Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cucco v. Chabau Café Corp.

99 A.D.3d 965, 952 N.Y.2d 463

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 965 (Cucco v. Chabau Café Corp.) 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

Cucco v. Chabau Café Corp., 99 A.D.3d 965, 952 N.Y.2d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR [966]*9663211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703, 703-704 [2008]; see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; White Plains Cleaning Servs., Inc. v 901 Props., LLC, 94 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2012]; East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 66 AD3d 122, 125 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 775 [2011]). When courts consider evidentiary material on motions to dismiss, the criterion becomes whether proponents of pleadings have a cause of action, not whether they have stated one. Upon a court’s consideration of such evidentiary material, however, motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) should be granted only when (1) it has been shown that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all, and (2) there is no significant dispute regarding it (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [2010]).

Here, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for breach of guaranty. Moreover, the evidentiary material that the defendant Catherine Chavenet submitted in support of that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her and the defendant Laurent Chavenet, her indemnitee, failed to show beyond significant dispute that any material fact alleged in the complaint was not a fact at all (see Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012]). Accordingly, the subject branch of the motion should have been denied. Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR [966]*9663211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703, 703-704 [2008]; see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; White Plains Cleaning Servs., Inc. v 901 Props., LLC, 94 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2012]; East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 66 AD3d 122, 125 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 775 [2011]). When courts consider evidentiary material on motions to dismiss, the criterion becomes whether proponents of pleadings have a cause of action, not whether they have stated one. Upon a court’s consideration of such evidentiary material, however, motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) should be granted only when (1) it has been shown that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all, and (2) there is no significant dispute regarding it (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [2010]).

Here, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for breach of guaranty. Moreover, the evidentiary material that the defendant Catherine Chavenet submitted in support of that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her and the defendant Laurent Chavenet, her indemnitee, failed to show beyond significant dispute that any material fact alleged in the complaint was not a fact at all (see Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012]). Accordingly, the subject branch of the motion should have been denied. Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 965, 952 N.Y.2d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cucco-v-chabau-cafe-corp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack