Marec v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marec v. Lynch

289 A.D.2d 541, 735 N.Y.S.2d 793, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13111

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 541 (Marec v. Lynch) 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

Marec v. Lynch, 289 A.D.2d 541, 735 N.Y.S.2d 793, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berger-man, J.), dated October 24, 2000, which, inter alia, denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To determine a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and must give the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the facts as alleged stated viable causes of action to impose a constructive trust and to recover damages for fraud (see, Leon v Martinez, supra, at 88).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berger-man, J.), dated October 24, 2000, which, inter alia, denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To determine a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and must give the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the facts as alleged stated viable causes of action to impose a constructive trust and to recover damages for fraud (see, Leon v Martinez, supra, at 88).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 541, 735 N.Y.S.2d 793, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marec-v-lynch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack