Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Friedman

141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6877

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 21, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1987, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must liberally construe the pleadings most favorably to the plaintiff (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562), and examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether one has been properly stated. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636.)

Applying these standards to the within complaint, we are satisfied that a cause of action for fraud is sufficiently stated. [402] Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1987, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must liberally construe the pleadings most favorably to the plaintiff (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562), and examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether one has been properly stated. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636.)

Applying these standards to the within complaint, we are satisfied that a cause of action for fraud is sufficiently stated. [402] Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Friedman v. Friedman, 141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

141 A.D.2d 401 (Friedman v. Friedman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related