Pankin v. Cronin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pankin v. Cronin

12 A.D.3d 492, 783 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13676

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 492 (Pankin v. Cronin) 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

Pankin v. Cronin, 12 A.D.3d 492, 783 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defen[493]*493dants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated December 23, 2003, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and (2) an order of the same court also dated December 23, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must determine, accepting as true the factual averments of the complaint and according the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences, whether the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable view of the facts as stated (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). Construing liberally the allegations of the complaint and the plaintiffs evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, and affording the complaint allegations every favorable inference, the plaintiff has alleged sufficient material facts to give rise to cognizable causes of action to recover damages for defamation.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, 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 defamation, the defen[493]*493dants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated December 23, 2003, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and (2) an order of the same court also dated December 23, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must determine, accepting as true the factual averments of the complaint and according the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences, whether the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable view of the facts as stated (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). Construing liberally the allegations of the complaint and the plaintiffs evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, and affording the complaint allegations every favorable inference, the plaintiff has alleged sufficient material facts to give rise to cognizable causes of action to recover damages for defamation.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 492, 783 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pankin-v-cronin-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack