Noble v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noble v. Graham

8 A.D.3d 641, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9144

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 641 (Noble v. Graham) 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

Noble v. Graham, 8 A.D.3d 641, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, [642]*642inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 3, 2003, which, among other things, granted the motion of the defendants Mark R. Graham and Graham Family 2000, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted the separate motion of the defendant Bank of America, N.A., for the same relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is appropriate where the facts alleged, even if accepted as true, establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633 [1976]; SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 AD2d 328 [1987]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, [642]*642inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 3, 2003, which, among other things, granted the motion of the defendants Mark R. Graham and Graham Family 2000, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted the separate motion of the defendant Bank of America, N.A., for the same relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is appropriate where the facts alleged, even if accepted as true, establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633 [1976]; SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 AD2d 328 [1987]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 641, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-graham-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack