Opinion
2013-05677
06-10-2015
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS F. LIOTTI, et al., appellants, v. Donald FELIX, et al., respondents.
Thomas F. Liotti, Garden City, N.Y., appellant pro se and for appellants Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti and Wendy Liotti. Donald Felix, Fishkill, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed). Trisha L. Felix, Fishkill, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed). Rufina Felix, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Thomas F. Liotti, Garden City, N.Y., appellant pro se and for appellants Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti and Wendy Liotti.
Donald Felix, Fishkill, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Trisha L. Felix, Fishkill, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Rufina Felix, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for fraud, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), dated April 2, 2013, which granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the sole criterion is whether factual allegations are discerned from the four corners of the complaint which, taken together, manifest any cause of action cognizable at law (see Cohen v. Kings Point Tenant Corp., 126 A.D.3d 843, 6 N.Y.S.3d 93 ; Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 126 A.D.3d 777, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Herman v. Kveton–Cattani, 123 A.D.3d 1093, 999 N.Y.S.2d 528 ). Even affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the facts alleged as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as the court was required to do on a motion to dismiss, the facts as alleged here do not fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Cohen v. Kings Point Tenant Corp. 126 A.D.3d at 844, 6 N.Y.S.3d 93 ; Herman v. Kveton–Cattani, 123 A.D.3d at 1095, 999 N.Y.S.2d 528 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.