Opinion
2018–09341 Index No. 502414/17
02-23-2022
BAY RIDGE LODGE 758, FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS, et al., respondents, v. GRAND LODGE OF FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants.
Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, New York, NY (Anthony D. Green of counsel), for appellants.
Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, New York, NY (Anthony D. Green of counsel), for appellants.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, REINALDO E. RIVERA, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated March 21, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty asserted by the plaintiffs Bay Ridge Lodge 758, Free & Accepted Masons, Jerry Fishman, Erik D. Rukhman, Joseph Staiano, Abner Abiel Rivera, Anthony J. Regina, Peter Grazioli, and Anthony Barris.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff Bay Ridge Lodge 758, Free & Accepted Masons (hereinafter Bay Ridge Lodge), allegedly a subordinate lodge chartered under the Benevolent Orders Law of the State of New York and the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of New York (hereinafter the Grand Lodge), and certain individual members of Bay Ridge Lodge, among others, commenced this action against the Grand Lodge and certain individuals. The amended complaint included, among other things, causes of action asserted by each of the plaintiffs to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action asserted by Bay Ridge Lodge and the plaintiffs Jerry Fishman, Erik D. Rukhman, Joseph Staiano, Abner Abiel Rivera, Anthony J. Regina, Peter Grazioli, and Anthony Barris (hereinafter collectively the individual plaintiffs). The Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the defendants’ motion, and the defendants appeal.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction (see id. § 3026). The facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ). "Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26 ). Applying these principles here, we conclude that the allegations pertaining to the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action asserted by Bay Ridge Lodge and the individual plaintiffs were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).
The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., IANNACCI, RIVERA and FORD, JJ., concur.