Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp.

2016 NY Slip Op 6866, 143 A.D.3d 562, 38 N.Y.S.3d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2016
Docket1955 159528/14
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6866 (Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty 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
Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 6866, 143 A.D.3d 562, 38 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2015, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), because the complaint adequately pleaded a cause of action sounding in negligence.

In addition, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), because the climactical records do not conclusively refute the complaint’s allegations. The affidavit submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss was not documentary evidence and does not conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law (see Asmar v 20th & Seventh Assoc., LLC, 125 AD3d 563, 563-564 [1st Dept 2015]).

Defendants’ arguments based on summary judgment standards are of no moment; as noted by Supreme Court, they *563 moved only to dismiss under CPLR 3211, and the court gave no indication that it was deeming the motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) (see Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506, 508 [1988]).

Defendants’ request to strike the paragraph at the end of the order is unavailing; in denying the motion to dismiss, the court did not render a finding on the merits of the complaint or express an opinion as to plaintiffs ability to establish the truth of the averments (see Khan v Newsweek, Inc., 160 AD2d 425, 426 [1st Dept 1990]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Related

Eustache v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.
2025 NY Slip Op 52037(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Holderness v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 32067(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
De La Cruz v. Evers Mar. & Seaplane Base
2023 NY Slip Op 00630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NY Slip Op 6866, 143 A.D.3d 562, 38 N.Y.S.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowenstern-v-sherman-square-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2016.