From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Konidaris v. Aeneas Capital Mgt.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2004
8 A.D.3d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-07603.

Decided June 1, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered August 12, 2003, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, New York, N.Y. (Lauren Reiter Brody, Frances K. Browne, and Justin Garbaccio of counsel), for appellants.

Sonnenschein Nath Rosenthal, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Zuckerman and Joshua Akbar of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court must accept as true the facts as alleged within the four corners of the complaint and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference to determine whether the allegations fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88; Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634). Viewing the complaint under this guideline, it sufficiently stated causes of action alleging breach of an oral contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.

The Supreme Court providently granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional claims pursuant to Labor Law article 6 for unpaid or improperly withheld wages ( see Leszczynski v. Kelly McGlynn, 281 A.D.2d 519) . The Supreme Court correctly determined that the additional Labor Law article 6 cause of action alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss ( see Labor Law §§ 190, 193, 198; Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, 187 Misc.2d 805, revd on other grounds 305 A.D.2d 453; Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, cert denied 528 U.S. 1119).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Konidaris v. Aeneas Capital Mgt.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2004
8 A.D.3d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Konidaris v. Aeneas Capital Mgt.

Case Details

Full title:JASON KONIDARIS, respondent, v. AENEAS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

Inc. Vill. of Manorhaven v. Toner

In making this determination, the factual allegations asserted in the pleading are to be accepted as true,…

Arciniega v. Voelkel

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, a court must accept as true the facts as alleged within the…