298 Humboldt, LLC v. Torres

13 Citing cases

  1. Maranino v. Cabrini of Westchester

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51040 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Furthermore, the legal standards to be applied in evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) are well-settled. In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)," 'the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law[,] a motion for dismissal will fail'" (298 Humboldt, LLC v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Leon, 84 N.Y.2d 83). "The complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party granted the benefit of every possible favorable inference" (298 Humboldt, LLC, 197 A.D.3d at 1083; see Leader v Steinway, Inc., 180 A.D.3d 886 [2d Dept 2020]).

  2. Bd. of Managers of Alexandria Condo. v. Adelman

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33941 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    On a motion pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see eg. Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; M & E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 189 A.D.3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2020]). In determining such a motion, "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]). In certain situations, however, the presumption falls away when bare legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint are flatly contradicted by evidence submitted by the Defendant (see Guggenheimer, supra; Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]).

  3. APSEC Resolution, LLC v. W. 21 St Assocs.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33859 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    The argument that the complaint is vague and non-specific is misplaced. To pass muster, "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]). "Even if the pleadings 'reek of miserable draftsmanship.' if they state any cause of action, no motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) will stand (id at 997, citing Siegel, NY Prac § 208, at 301 [2d ed 1991]).

  4. Wells Fargo Bank v. 63 Spring Lafayette, LLC

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32543 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    On a motion pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], a movant is required to establish either that a cause of action is facially insufficient (see 298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting GuggenheimervGinzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]) or proffer evidence which flatly contradicts the legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint (see id.; Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, PC.vGeller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]). In assessing facial sufficiency, the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see ChankovAmerican Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; PalazzolovHerrick, Feinstein, LLP, 298 A.D.2d 372 [2d Dept 2002]; SchulmanvChase Manhattan Bank, 268 A.D.2d 174 [2d Dept 2000]).

  5. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Park Place Dev. Primary

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32110 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    As to the counterclaims, on a motion pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], the allegations contained in the pleading must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see eg Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; M & E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 189 A.D.3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2020]). In determining such a motion, "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]). In certain situations, however, the presumption falls away when bare legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint are flatly contradicted by evidence submitted by the Defendant (see Guggenheimer, supra; Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]).

  6. Koffler v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50467 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Further, claims for professional negligence against defendants Levine and Pisco do not lie, as there is no common law duty independent of the contract for which they can be held liable. An alleged breach of contract cannot be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 656 [1987]; 298 Humboldt, LLC v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 153 N.Y.S.3d 507 [2d Dept 2021]). This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract (see 298 Humbolt v Torres, supra; see also Rich v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv R. R. Co., 87 NY 382 [1882]; Riffat v Continental Ins. Co., 104 A.D.2d 301, 478 N.Y.S.2d 635 [1st Dept 1984]).

  7. Berhad v. Park Place Dev. Primary

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33997 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    With respect to the mechanic's lienors' counterclaims for foreclosure and subordination, Plaintiff, by moving to dismiss these claims pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], was required to establish either that the counterclaims are facially insufficient (see 298 Humboldt. LLC. v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]) or proffer evidence which flatly contradicts the legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint (see id., Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]). When in the uncommon circumstance the evidence reaches this threshold (see Lawrence v Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 588, 595 [2008]), the court "must determine whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether she has stated one" (Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P. C. v Geller, supra; see also Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 635-636 [1976]).

  8. Adame v. Anacostia Rail Holdings Co.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33748 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Movants were required to establish either that the Labor Law causes of action are facially insufficient (see 298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]) or proffer evidence which flatly contradicts the legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint (see id.; Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]). In assessing facial sufficiency, the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; Palazzolo v Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, 298 A.D.2d 372 [2d Dept 2002]; Schulman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 268 A.D.2d 174 [2d Dept 2000]).

  9. Alvarez v. Anacostia Rail Holdings Co.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33750 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times
    Noting parties’ "agree[ment] that the field at issue is the wages and hours of railroad employees"

    Movants were required to establish either that the Labor Law causes of action are facially insufficient (see 298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]) or proffer evidence which flatly contradicts the legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint (see id.; Kantrowitz &Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]). In assessing facial sufficiency, the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; Palazzolo v Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, 298 A.D.2d 372 [2d Dept 2002]; Schulman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 268 A.D.2d 174 [2d Dept 2000]).

  10. Berhad v. Park Place Dev. Primary

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33424 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    On a motion pursuant to CPLR §3211 [a][7], the allegations contained in the complaint must be presumed to be true, liberally construed and a plaintiff must be accorded every possible favorable inference (see eg. Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 [2016]; M & E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 189 A.D.3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2020]). In determining such a motion, "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (298 Humboldt, LLC, v Torres, 197 A.D.3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977]). In certain situations, however, the presumption falls away when bare legal conclusions and factual claims contained in the complaint are flatly contradicted by evidence submitted by the Defendant (see Guggenheimer, supra; Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P. C. v Geller, 265 A.D.2d 529 [2d Dept 1999]).