Moreover, the fifth and eighth causes of action are also duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, and therefore were properly subject to dismissal (see id.; see also P.S. Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc., 214 A.D.3d 1, 30; KST2 Props., LLC v Pretee Constr. Co., Inc., 192 A.D.3d 785, 786).

Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in this Court's decision and order on two related appeals (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mitselmakher, ___A.D.3d ___[Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2018-07123 and 2018-08459; decided herewith]). On a motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court "must accept [the] facts as alleged... and submissions in opposition [as true], accord [the pleading party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 59, 63 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88; KST2 Props., LLC v Pretee Constr. Co., Inc., 192 A.D.3d 785). Here, contrary to the contention of the defendant Adam Plotch, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss his first through third counterclaims.

Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in this Court's decision and order on two related appeals (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mitselmakher, 197 A.D.3d 778, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2018–07123 and 2018–08459; decided herewith] ). On a motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court "must accept [the] facts as alleged ... and submissions in opposition [as true], accord [the pleading party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v. Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 59, 63, 956 N.Y.S.2d 439, 980 N.E.2d 487 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeLeon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ; KST2 Props., LLC v. Pretee Constr. Co., Inc., 192 A.D.3d 785, 139 N.Y.S.3d 877 ). Here, contrary to the contention of the defendant Adam Plotch, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss his first through third counterclaims.

Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in this Court's decision and order on two related appeals (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mitselmakher, ___A.D.3d ___[Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2018-07123 and 2018-08459; decided herewith]). On a motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court "must accept [the] facts as alleged... and submissions in opposition [as true], accord [the pleading party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 59, 63 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88; KST2 Props., LLC v Pretee Constr. Co., Inc., 192 A.D.3d 785). Here, contrary to the contention of the defendant Adam Plotch, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss his first through third counterclaims.