Shariff v. Artuz

Full title: ABDUL SHARIFF, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 25, 2000

No. 99 Civ. 11668 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2000)

Opinion

No. 99 Civ. 11668 (BSJ).

October 25, 2000.

Opinion and Order

BARBARA S. JONES, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. See Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir. 1996). A complaint may not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) unless it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief." Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957))

In other words, the issue before the Court on a motion to dismiss "is not whether . . . plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.s. 808 (1996).

At this stage of the proceedings, treating the factual allegations as true and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, it is not beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief. As a result, the Courtdenies defendants' motion.

SO ORDERED: