Long v. Allen AME Transportation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Long v. Allen AME Transportation Corp.

43 A.D.3d 1114, 841 N.Y.S.2d 798

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1114 (Long v. Allen AME Transportation 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

Long v. Allen AME Transportation Corp., 43 A.D.3d 1114, 841 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Academy Bus Tours of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated September 6, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint, in effect, pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1) “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; Kalmon Dolgin Affiliates of Long Is. v Robert Plan Corp., 248 AD2d 594 [1998]). As the [1115]*1115Supreme Court correctly concluded, the complaint contains sufficient allegations to state a cognizable cause of action against the appellant, which is not definitively refuted by documentary evidence. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Academy Bus Tours of New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated September 6, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint, in effect, pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1) “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; Kalmon Dolgin Affiliates of Long Is. v Robert Plan Corp., 248 AD2d 594 [1998]). As the [1115]*1115Supreme Court correctly concluded, the complaint contains sufficient allegations to state a cognizable cause of action against the appellant, which is not definitively refuted by documentary evidence. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1114, 841 N.Y.S.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-allen-ame-transportation-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack