Francis v. Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall

89 A.D.3d 680, 931 N.Y.2d 888

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 680 (Francis v. Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall) 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

Francis v. Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall, 89 A.D.3d 680, 931 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) will be granted if “a defense is founded upon documentary evidence” (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall utterly refuted the factual allegations of the plaintiffs complaint and conclusively established a defense to the claims as a matter of law (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; Granada Condominium III Assn. v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996 [2010]; Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d at 83). As such, the Supreme Court also properly denied, as academic, the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, for discovery.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, or have been rendered academic by our determination. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) will be granted if “a defense is founded upon documentary evidence” (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant Vornado Realty Trust/Kings Plaza Mall utterly refuted the factual allegations of the plaintiffs complaint and conclusively established a defense to the claims as a matter of law (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; Granada Condominium III Assn. v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996 [2010]; Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d at 83). As such, the Supreme Court also properly denied, as academic, the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, for discovery.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, or have been rendered academic by our determination. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 680, 931 N.Y.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-vornado-realty-trustkings-plaza-mall-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack