Hinrichs v. Youssef

214 A.D.2d 604, 625 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4094
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 10, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 604 (Hinrichs v. Youssef) 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
Hinrichs v. Youssef, 214 A.D.2d 604, 625 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, assault, battery, conversion, and larceny, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated December 7, 1993, which granted the motion of the third-party defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the third-party complaint is reinstated.

Affidavits received on a motion to dismiss for failure to state [605]*605a cause of action which has not been converted to a motion for summary judgment are not to be examined for the purpose of determining whether there is evidentiary support of the pleading (see, Rovello v Oro fino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635). Accordingly, it was error for the Supreme Court to grant the motion based on the failure of the third-party plaintiffs to set forth facts in their affidavit in opposition which supported the allegations in their third-party complaint. Moreover, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the proper concern is whether the pleading states a cause of action rather than the ultimate determination of the facts (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 275). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia v. Mata
195 Misc. 2d 96 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)
Fada Industries, Inc. v. Falchi Building Co.
189 Misc. 2d 1 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
German v. Bruins Transportation, Inc.
272 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Metrow v. St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church
225 A.D.2d 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.D.2d 604, 625 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinrichs-v-youssef-nyappdiv-1995.