From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Penfield v. Baker Commodities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 4, 1988
138 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 4, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order affirmed without costs. All concur, Callahan, J., not participating. Memorandum: Defendant moved for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Plaintiff expressly limited its responding papers to that motion (cf., Goldstein v. County of Monroe, 77 A.D.2d 232) and the parties were not given notice that the motion would be treated as one for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3211 [c]). Thus, Special Term's order properly recites that the motion was made under CPLR 3211.

"[A] complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the plaintiff is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, a cause of action exists." (Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634.) Here, Special Term properly denied the motion because, assuming as we must the truth of the allegations, the complaint states valid causes of action.

Defendant's claim that plaintiff was not properly authorized to bring this action is without merit.


Summaries of

Town of Penfield v. Baker Commodities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 4, 1988
138 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Town of Penfield v. Baker Commodities, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF PENFIELD, Respondent, v. BAKER COMMODITIES, INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 4, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Delpopolo v. Zanghi

"[A] complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the plaintiff is given the…