From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 20, 2016
143 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

10-20-2016

Barbara A. LOWENSTERN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SHERMAN SQUARE REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Milber Makis Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for appellants. Queller, Fisher, Washor, Fuchs & Kool, LLP, New York (Christopher L. Sallay of counsel), for respondent.


Milber Makis Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for appellants.

Queller, Fisher, Washor, Fuchs & Kool, LLP, New York (Christopher L. Sallay of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2015, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), because the complaint adequately pleaded a cause of action sounding in negligence.

In addition, Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), because the climactical records do not conclusively refute the complaint's allegations. The affidavit submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss was not documentary evidence and does not conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law (see Asmar v. 20th & Seventh Assoc., LLC, 125 A.D.3d 563, 563–564, 4 N.Y.S.3d 198 [1st Dept.2015] ).

Defendants' arguments based on summary judgment standards are of no moment; as noted by Supreme Court, they moved only to dismiss under CPLR 3211, and the court gave no indication that it was deeming the motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) (see Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508, 534 N.Y.S.2d 656, 531 N.E.2d 288 [1988] ).

Defendants' request to strike the paragraph at the end of the order is unavailing; in denying the motion to dismiss, the court did not render a finding on the merits of the complaint or express an opinion as to plaintiff's ability to establish the truth of the averments (see Khan v. Newsweek, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 425, 426, 554 N.Y.S.2d 119 [1st Dept.1990] ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RICHTER, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 20, 2016
143 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Barbara A. Lowenstern, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sherman Square Realty…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 20, 2016

Citations

143 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6866
38 N.Y.S.3d 899

Citing Cases

People v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.

B. PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE Although respondents may not support their motions to dismiss the petition with…

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Aecom U.S., Inc.

The documentary evidence must "conclusively refute the complaint's allegations." (Lowenstern v Sherman Square…