Rudovic v. Law Office of Timothy A. Green

4 Citing cases

  1. Popal v. DiLorenzo

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    When deciding a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, "the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" (Rudovic v Law Off. of Timothy A. Green, 200 A.D.3d 814, 815, quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88). "

  2. Bascom v. 1875 Atl. Ave. Dev.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, "the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" (Rudovic v Law Off. of Timothy A. Green, 200 A.D.3d 814, 815, quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88). A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations" (Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 215 A.D.3d 907, 908 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Mawere v Landau, 130 A.D.3d 986, 987).

  3. First Korean Church of N.Y. v. 35 Ave. & Parsons

    221 A.D.3d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    We affirm. When deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, "the court must ‘accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory’ " ( Rudovic v. Law Off. of Timothy A. Green, 200 A.D.3d 814, 815, 155 N.Y.S.3d 128, quoting Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ). A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations" ( Bedford–Carp Constr., Inc. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 215 A.D.3d 907, 908, 188 N.Y.S.3d 554 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMawere v. Landau, 130 A.D.3d 986, 987, 15 N.Y.S.3d 120 ).

  4. Marinelli v. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2994 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action in the amended complaint. That cause of action was "based on the same facts underlying the legal malpractice cause of action and did not allege distinct damages" (Rudovic v Law Off. of Timothy A. Green, 200 A.D.3d 814, 815; see Drasche v Edelman & Edelman, 201 A.D.3d 434; Cali v Maio, 189 A.D.3d 1337, 1339; Prott v Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 150 A.D.3d 908, 910). Accordingly, we affirm the order dated July 10, 2018, insofar as appealed from.