Thus under CPLR 3211 (a)(7), the court must simply look to see if the cause of action has been pleaded and need not look into the merits of the cause of action whether there is evidence to support the complaint. Hejna v. Reilly, 237 AD2d 809 (3d Dep't 1997).
Thus under CPLR 3211 (a)(7), the court must simply look to see if the cause of action has been pleaded and need not look into the merits of the cause of action whether there is evidence to support the complaint. Hejna v. Reilly, 237 AD2d 809 (3d Dep't 1997).
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered October 20, 2010 in Albany County, which partially granted plaintiff's motion to, among other things, enforce the child support provisions of the parties' judgment of divorce. The parties' appeals in connection with their divorce and child support dispute have been before us on two prior occasions, and the underlying facts are more fully set out in our earlier decisions (26 A.D.3d 709, 810 N.Y.S.2d 242 [2006], 237 A.D.2d 809, 655 N.Y.S.2d 125 [1997] ). Briefly, the parties are the parents of a daughter (born in 1986) and a son (born in 1988). They entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce.
In determining a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, the court must "accord the complaint a liberal construction, assume its factual allegations to be true, draw every possible favorable inference therefrom and determine only whether any cognizable cause of action has been alleged" ( Esposito-Hilder v. SFX Broadcasting, 236 A.D.2d 186, 187-188). To defend such a motion, a plaintiff need not offer evidentiary support ( see, Hejna v. Reilly, 237 A.D.2d 809; De Pan v. First Natl. Bank, 98 A.D.2d 885). Reviewing the complaint herein, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss.