Troccoli v. Zarabi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troccoli v. Zarabi

57 A.D.3d 971, 869 N.Y.2d 797

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 971 (Troccoli v. Zarabi) 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

Troccoli v. Zarabi, 57 A.D.3d 971, 869 N.Y.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[972]*972“In the context of a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the pleadings are necessarily afforded a liberal construction,” and the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every favorable inference (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the ground of a defense founded on documentary evidence may appropriately be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [the] plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (id.; see Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 37-38 [2006]; Williams v Williams, 36 AD3d 693, 695 [2007]).

The documentary evidence submitted by the defendant did not utterly refute the plaintiffs allegations, and thus did not conclusively establish a defense to that cause of action as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

[972]*972“In the context of a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the pleadings are necessarily afforded a liberal construction,” and the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every favorable inference (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the ground of a defense founded on documentary evidence may appropriately be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [the] plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (id.; see Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 37-38 [2006]; Williams v Williams, 36 AD3d 693, 695 [2007]).

The documentary evidence submitted by the defendant did not utterly refute the plaintiffs allegations, and thus did not conclusively establish a defense to that cause of action as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 971, 869 N.Y.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troccoli-v-zarabi-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack