Morales v. 78 4th Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. 78 4th Avenue Corp.

57 A.D.3d 748, 868 N.Y.2d 901

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 748 (Morales v. 78 4th Avenue 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

Morales v. 78 4th Avenue Corp., 57 A.D.3d 748, 868 N.Y.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 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 [749]*749Supreme Court properly concluded, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their cross motion to dismiss does not establish their defense as a matter of law or definitely dispose of the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Miller, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 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 [749]*749Supreme Court properly concluded, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their cross motion to dismiss does not establish their defense as a matter of law or definitely dispose of the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Miller, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 748, 868 N.Y.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-78-4th-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack