N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3211

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Reinman v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. · filed 2023-04-05(a)(7)

'On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" ( J & JT Holding Corp. v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. , 173 AD3d 704, 706, quoting Shah v Exxis, Inc. , 138 AD3d 970, 971).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, and gives the plaintiff every favorable inference.

LaGuardia Community Coll. Paramedic Class 23 Student John Ciafone v. City of New York · filed 2023-04-05(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be accorded a liberal construction, the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every favorable inference ( see Rigwan v Neus , 205 AD3d 1062, 1063).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Davila v. Orange County · filed 2023-04-05(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Boyle v North Salem Cent. Sch. Dist. , 208 AD3d 744; Doe v Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown , 195 AD3d 595).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts deciding whether a complaint states a cause of action to construe the pleading liberally, accept its alleged facts as true, and give the plaintiff every possible inference.

Cabrera v. Rallye Motors, LLC · filed 2023-04-12(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC , 54 AD3d 703, 703-704; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its allegations as true, gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, and asks whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Emerson Climate Tech., Inc. · filed 2023-04-13(a)(7)

When assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, this Court affords the complaint a liberal construction, accepts the facts alleged as true, accords the plaintiff[] the benefit of every favorable inference and determines only whether the alleged facts [*2]fit within any cognizable legal theory.

On a motion to dismiss under section 3211(a)(7), courts accept the alleged facts as true, give plaintiffs every favorable inference, and ask whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Cavosie v. Hussain · filed 2023-04-13(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [the] plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Horowitz v Fallon , 204 AD3d 1177, 1178 [3d Dept 2022]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court asks whether the pleaded facts state a cause of action, accepting them as true and drawing favorable inferences for the plaintiff.

Metwally v. City of New York · filed 2023-04-19(a)(7)

"When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action" ( Neuman v Echevarria , 171 AD3d 767, 768 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits a pre-answer motion testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint.

State of New York v. Oren-Pines · filed 2023-03-28(a)(7)

It bears emphasis that the motion before the Court is a pre-answer motion for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), which is directed to the legal sufficiency of the Complaint, not a properly supported motion for summary judgment made following joinder of issue.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of claims against defendants whom the plaintiff's own allegations show were not involved in the alleged incident.

Curry v. Town of Oyster Bay · filed 2023-05-03(a)(7)

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action arising from the January 6, 2019 incident insofar as asserted against O.B. Sanitation Dept. and Mike Del. Based upon the plaintiff's own allegations, those defendants were not involved in the January 6, 2019 incident.

A justification defense that may be established at summary judgment does not warrant dismissal of a tortious interference claim under CPLR 3211(a)(7) at the pleading stage.

Arena Invs., L.P. v. DCK Worldwide Holding Inc. · filed 2023-05-09(a)(7)

Finally, as to Capstone's claim that it acted with Arena's knowledge and consent, at the summary judgment stage Capstone may be able to show that it was justified in taking the actions that it took. However, it was not entitled to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissal of the tortious interference claim ( see e.g. Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634-636 [1976]).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true and gives the plaintiff every possible favorable inference when assessing whether it states a cause of action.

Brave v. City of New York · filed 2023-05-10(a)(7)

Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Joseph v Fensterman , 204 AD3d 766, 767), the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action against the school district defendants alleging a violation of their mandatory duty to report suspected child abuse.

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court construes the pleading liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, and asks whether they fit a cognizable legal theory.

Matter of Holterbosch · filed 2023-05-10(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged as true, accord the pleading the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true and gives the plaintiff every possible inference.

D & G Constr. Dean Gonzalez, LLC v. Scohn Enters., Inc. · filed 2023-05-17(a)(7)

Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible inference ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87), the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for conversion of the tangible personal property and specific money referenced in the eighth cause of action insofar as asserted against those defendants.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s facts as true, gives the nonmoving party every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Brown v. University of Rochester · filed 2023-05-18(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [the nonmoving party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must construe the complaint liberally, accept its alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and ask whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Floral Park Ophthalmology, P.C. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, LLP · filed 2023-05-31(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP , 186 AD3d 1504, 1505 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Mackey Reed Elec., Inc. v Morrone & Assoc., P.C. , 125 AD3d 822, 822).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts pleaded facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Tueme v. Lezama · filed 2023-06-07(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87; Vice, Inc. v Stapp , 209 AD3d 794, 796).

Section 3211 requires courts deciding a motion to dismiss to construe the pleading liberally, accept its alleged facts as true, and give the plaintiff every favorable inference when assessing whether it states a cognizable claim.

Matter of 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assoc., L.P. v. County of Suffolk · filed 2023-05-17(a)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87; see CPLR 3026). 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d at 87-88).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of a demand for punitive damages when the complaint’s allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed, do not support that remedy.

Dash Windows of L.I., Inc. v. Bivona · filed 2023-05-17(a)(7)

Here, affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting all facts as alleged in the complaint to be true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see CPLR 3026; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), the allegations in the complaint do not support the imposition of punitive damages against the defendant ( see Bellevue Towers & Gardens, LLC v Atlantis Natl. Servs., Inc. , 208 AD3d 1300, 1302; Goldberger v Rudnicki , 94 AD3d 1047, 1048; Fragrancenet.com, Inc. v Fragrancex.com, Inc. , 68 AD3d 1051, 1052). Accordingly, the [*2]Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the demand for punitive damages.

On a motion to dismiss, a defendant's factual assertions disputing alleged misconduct do not refute the complaint's allegations at the pleading stage.

Señal v. Lynch · filed 2023-06-06(a)(7)

Defendants' factual assertions disputing misconduct by Lynch are insufficient to refute plaintiff's allegations at the pleading stage ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Cai v. Cohen · filed 2023-06-23(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must accept as true the facts as alleged in the pleading and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Kaufman v Kaufman , 206 AD3d 805, 806 [2022]; see Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc. , 20 NY3d 59, 63 [2012]).

Under subsection (a)(7), a complaint alleging facts sufficient to support a contract claim survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

Manhattan Chrystie St. Dev. Fund, LLC v. Witkoff Group LLC · filed 2023-06-26(a)(7)

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), "the moving party 'must convince the court that nothing the plaintiff can reasonably be expected to prove would help; that the plaintiff just doesn't have a claim'" ( Natixis Real Est. Cap. Tr. 2007-HE2 v. Natixis Real Est. Holdings, LLC , 149 AD3d 127, 136 [1st Dep't 2017]). ... Therefore, this court is satisfied that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts that the JV's breaches of sections 4.04(a), 4.04(b) and 3.04(c) of the JV agreement constitute willful misconduct as contemplated by the guaranty, thereby triggering the guarantors' liability.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the pleading liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Kissane v. Cashman · filed 2023-06-28(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must "afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Phillips v Taco Bell Corp. , 152 AD3d 806, 807; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

CPLR 3211 (a) (7) does not warrant dismissal when the complaint and its exhibits adequately state causes of action and the defendant's objections raise issues of fact.

Wang v. Barbosa · filed 2023-06-30(a)(7)

Thus, we conclude that the amended complaint, with its attached exhibits, "adequately sets forth causes of action for a declaratory judgment, [specific performance of the contract, and] breach of contract . . . , and defendant's contentions to the contrary raise issues of fact and do not warrant relief under CPLR 3211 (a) (7)" ( Tower Broadcasting, LLC v Equinox Broadcasting Corp. , 160 AD3d 1435, 1436 [4th Dept 2018]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and denies dismissal if the allegations state a cause of action.

Striplin v. AC&E Home Inspection Corp. · filed 2023-07-05(a)(7)

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Balaban defendants actively concealed extensive water damage to the property.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives plaintiffs every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Reaves v. New York City Dept. of Educ. · filed 2023-07-19(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), a court must "accept the facts as alleged in a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141).

On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, courts liberally construe the complaint, accept its factual allegations as true, and decide whether the pleadings state a cause of action.

IKB International v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2023-06-15

On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, “our task is to determine whether plaintiffs’ pleadings state a cause of action” by assessing “the pleadings’ four corners,” “liberally constru[ing] the complaint,” and “accept[ing] as true the facts alleged in the complaint” (511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court construes the pleadings liberally, accepts the allegations as true, and gives the plaintiff every possible favorable inference.

Housing Opportunities Made Equal v. DASA Props. LLC · filed 2023-06-30(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), we "must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the allegations of the complaint as true and provide plaintiff . . . 'the benefit of every possible favorable inference' " ( AG Capital Funding Partners , L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 NY3d 582, 591 [2005], quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), courts construe the pleading liberally, accept its factual allegations as true, and give the plaintiff every favorable inference.

Manhattan Chrystie St. Dev. Fund, LLC v. 215 Chrystie Invs. LLC · filed 2023-07-17(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, "the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction" and 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" ( Leon v. Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss a fiduciary duty claim, the court asks whether the duty has been adequately alleged, not whether it can ultimately be proven.

Chen v. 215 Chrystie Venture, LLC · filed 2023-07-13(a)(7)

Thus, the determination of the existence of a fiduciary duty is not properly decided on a motion to dismiss and instead the court must determine if one has been alleged, not whether it can be proven at this point ( see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co ., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Merchant Factors Corp. v. Crush Apparel & Accessories Inc. · filed 2023-07-21(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), '[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' " ( Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141 [2017], quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Rosa v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. · filed 2023-07-26(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), "the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, 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" ( SV Vernon 43, LLC v Malik , 138 AD3d 730, 731 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Browne v. Lyft, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), we afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see id. § 3026; J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co. , 21 NY3d 324, 334; 260 Mamaroneck Ave., LLC v Guaraglia , 172 AD3d 661, 662).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

We Transp., Inc. v. Westbury Union Free Sch. Dist. · filed 2023-08-23(a)(7)

"On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Shah v Exxis, Inc. , 138 AD3d 970, 971; see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

41 Riv. Rd., LLC v. Bank of Am., NA · filed 2023-08-23(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see MJK Bldg. Corp. v Fayland Realty, Inc. , 181 AD3d 860, 861).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Garanin v. Hiatt · filed 2023-08-30(a)(7)

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Applying these principles here, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice.

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Weiss v. Vacca · filed 2023-09-13(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court is required to accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every [*2]possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, and gives the plaintiff every possible favorable inference.

Perez v. Y & M Transp. Corp. · filed 2023-09-20(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must give the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged therein as true, provide the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and "determine [*2]only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman , 31 NY3d 30, 38; EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint's allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

2330 Ocean Assoc., LLC v. Haroun · filed 2023-09-20(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the facts as alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court's function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; TMCC, Inc. v Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. , 176 AD3d 1135, 1135-1136).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true, gives plaintiffs every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

R. F. v. County of Westchester · filed 2023-09-27(a)(7)

"In assessing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint, a 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'" ( Bonavita v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 185 AD3d 892, 893, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court liberally construes the complaint, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Landa v. Brown Chiari, LLP · filed 2023-09-27(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading is afforded a liberal construction, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Cruz v City of New York , 211 AD3d 1011, 1011).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), courts liberally construe a complaint and presume its allegations true, but dismiss it if those allegations fail to state a cognizable cause of action.

Tumayeva v. Geyber · filed 2023-10-04(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Minico Ins. Agency, LLC v B & M Cleanup Servs. , 165 AD3d 776, 776). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first cause of action, alleging tortious interference with contract.

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations state a cognizable claim.

Forbes v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch. · filed 2023-10-11(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Davila v Orange County , 215 AD3d 632, 633).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, draws every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Borovina v. ACAP Fund GP, LLC · filed 2023-10-11(a)(7)

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), "a court must accept the facts [*2]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" ( Sullivan v Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist. , 213 AD3d 966, 967 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Skefalidis v China Pagoda NY, Inc. , 210 AD3d 925, 926).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court gives the pleading every favorable inference and asks whether its allegations fit any cognizable legal theory.

Matter of Bonilla v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist. · filed 2023-10-18(a)(7)

"In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether, giving the pleader the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the four corners of the pleading contain factual allegations which can fit any cognizable legal theory" ( Matter of Clavin v Mitchell , 131 AD3d 612, 614; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court liberally construes the complaint, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiffs every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

5 Star Holdings NY, LLC v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. · filed 2023-10-18(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), "the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, 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" ( SV Vernon 43, LLC v Malik , 138 AD3d 730, 731 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits a court to consider a defendant’s evidentiary submissions and dismiss a claim if they conclusively establish that the claimant has no cause of action.

Todd v. State of New York · filed 2023-10-18(a)(7)

In addition, the Court may consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and, in that case, "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [they have] stated one" ( Guggenheimer , 43 NY2d at 275 [emphasis added]; see Cavosie v Hussain , 215 AD3d 1080, 1081 [3d Dept 2023]). Dismissal will be warranted where such submissions "'establish conclusively that [the nonmoving party] has no cause of action'" ( Sokol v Leader , 74 AD3d 1180, 1182 [2d Dept 2010], quoting Lawrence v Graubard Miller , 11 NY3d 588, 595 [2008]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court liberally construes the complaint, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Whelan v. Cuomo · filed 2023-10-25(a)(7)

'In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" ( Bono v Stim & Warmuth, P.C. , 215 AD3d 911, 911, quoting Langley v Melville Fire Dist. , 213 AD3d 748, 750).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Medeiros v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2023-10-25(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Sullivan v Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist. , 213 AD3d 966, 967).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Kaul v. Brooklyn Friends Sch. · filed 2023-10-25(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a 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'" ( Sullivan v St. Ephrem R.C. Parish Church , 214 AD3d 751, 752, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Davila v Orange County , 215 AD3d 632, 635).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, treats its factual allegations as true, and gives the nonmoving party all favorable inferences.

Archival, Inc. v. 177 Realty Corp. · filed 2023-10-25(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences" ( Rosenshein v Kushner , 212 AD3d 744, 744; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires a complaint to be liberally construed, with its facts accepted as true and the plaintiff given every favorable inference, when deciding whether it states a cause of action.

Guliyev v. Banilov & Assoc., P.C. · filed 2023-11-01(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts therein must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference" ( Angeli v Barket , 211 AD3d 896, 897; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a pleading fails to state a cognizable claim, based on the alleged facts viewed in the claimant's favor.

Matter of Dunsmoor · filed 2023-11-02(a)(7)

To the extent that respondent alleges that petitioner failed to state a claim in regard to its pleading of Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.1 (a), we conclude that, accepting the alleged facts as true and interpreting them in the light most favorable to petitioner ( see Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc. , 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), the petition, on its face, states a cognizable claim.

Section 3211(a)(7) requires a court deciding a motion for failure to state a cause of action to accept pleaded facts as true, give the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and decide only whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Alexim Holdings, LLC v. McAuliffe · filed 2023-11-08(a)(7)

On 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 alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Marinelli v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C. , 205 AD3d 714, 715).

Section 3211(a)(7) sets the failure to state a cause of action standard, while section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Solly v. Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist. · filed 2023-11-17(a)(7), (a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, we must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [the] plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see AG Capital Funding Partners , L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 NY3d 582, 591 [2005]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of a cause of action when the alleged conduct, even if accepted as true, does not establish negligence.

Santaro v. Finocchio · filed 2023-11-17(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a cause of action for legal malpractice is properly dismissed where the conduct alleged in the complaint, "even if accepted as true[,] does not establish negligence" ( Leder , 9 NY3d at 837; see generally Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C. , 99 AD3d 843, 847 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept the complaint's facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide only whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Tcharnyi v. Mendez · filed 2023-11-22(a)(7)

"In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Daniel v Khadu , 190 AD3d 817, 818; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, applying a liberal construction and accepting alleged facts as true with favorable inferences.

JM UC Group, LLC v. Precious Care Mgt., LLC · filed 2023-11-22(a)(7)

Applying these principles here, within its four corners, the second cause of action sufficiently alleged the elements of a breach of contract cause of action necessary to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( see Magee-Boyle v Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 173 AD3d at 1159).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a pleading fails to state a cause of action.

Island Stars 21 Inc. v. Buccaria · filed 2023-11-28(a)(7)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered June 23, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Major Studios Partners LLC's (MSP) motion to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (conversion) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend its complaint to add an unjust enrichment claim against MSP, unanimously affirmed, with costs. ... The court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for conversion against MSP, as it failed to state a cause of action ( see McBride v KPMG Intl., 135 AD3d 576, 580 [1st Dept 2016]).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court ordinarily accepts the complaint’s allegations as true and gives the plaintiff every favorable inference.

Whitehead v. Pine Haven Operating LLC · filed 2023-11-30(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a claim, the facts alleged in the complaint are typically accepted as true and the plaintiff is accorded every favorable inference ( see Brown v University of Rochester , 216 AD3d 1328, 1330 [3d Dept 2023]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, section 3211 requires liberal construction of the pleading.

Hudson Neurosurgery, PLLC v. State of New York · filed 2023-12-01(a)(7)

It is well settled that when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 on the ground that the claim fails to state a cause of action, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, courts construe the pleading liberally, accept its alleged facts as true, and give the plaintiff every favorable inference.

May Dock Lane, LLC v. Harras Bloom & Archer, LLP · filed 2023-12-06(a)(7)

"In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Langley v Melville Fire Dist. , 213 AD3d 748, 750; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the complaint’s alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff favorable inferences, and decide whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Statement Servs. Corp. v. Lerock Constr., LP · filed 2023-12-27(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Cantor v Villucci , 212 AD3d 765, 766).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court liberally construes the complaint, presumes its alleged facts true, gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Clevenger v. Yuzek · filed 2023-12-27(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Gorbatov v Tsirelman , 155 AD3d 836, 837).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the nonmoving party every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Sciocchetti v. Molinsek · filed 2024-01-11(a)(7)

When presented with a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the nonmoving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Brown v University of Rochester , 216 AD3d 1328, 1330 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotations marks, brackets and citation omitted]).

On a motion under subsection (a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true, gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, and asks whether the allegations state a cognizable claim.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Ctr. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. · filed 2024-01-24(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court " accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" ( Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman , 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018], quoting Leon , 84 NY2d at 87-88). ... These failures notwithstanding, the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim as against Juno, and shall stand, as the complaint fairly and completely states a claim for breach of contract for Abecma as a non-licensed product.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

One PPW Owner, LLC v. IBI Group · filed 2024-01-29(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court accepts the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accords the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, ... and determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the petition’s factual allegations as true, gives the petitioner favorable inferences, and asks whether the facts support a cause of action.

594 Rogers BH LLC v. Frederick · filed 2024-02-02(a)(7)

Courts have held that on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), RSC 2524.2(a) and (3), a court must determined whether accepting as true the factual allegations in the petition and according the plaintiffs the benefits of any favorable inferences, the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable views of the facts and whether the pleadings have a cause of action (See Rochdale Village Inc., v Zimmerman , 2 AD3d 827 [AD 2nd Dept 2003]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its factual allegations as true, and gives the plaintiff every possible favorable inference before deciding whether it states a cause of action.

Stefanik v. Hochul · filed 2024-02-05(a)(7)

It is well settled that "[i]n a civil action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and to dismiss the pleading if, upon that analysis, it fails to state a cause of action" ( Dodson v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam , 182 AD3d 109, 112 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint's allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Costello v. Curan & Ahlers, LLP · filed 2024-02-14(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts factual allegations as true, draws favorable inferences for the nonmoving party, and asks whether the alleged facts support a cognizable legal theory.

Ahmed v. Nnoli · filed 2024-02-14(a)(7)

When considering a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), a court must accept the factual allegations of the pleadings as true, affording the non-moving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determining "only whether the facts as alleged fit within any [*3]cognizable legal theory" ( see D.K. Prop., Inc. v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 168 AD3d 505 [1st Dept. 2019]; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267 [1st Dept. 2004]).

On a motion under (a)(7), the court construes the complaint in the plaintiff's favor and accepts its factual allegations as true.

Century Prop. & Cas. Ins. Corp. v. McManus & Richter · filed 2024-02-15(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all factual allegations must be accepted as true ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the pleading receives a liberal construction, though an unjust conviction claim must meet the higher pleading standard of Court of Claims Act § 8-b.

Hopwah v. State of New York · filed 2024-02-15(a)(7)

It is well settled that when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) on the ground that the claim fails to state a cause of action, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction ( see CPLR 3026; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Gioeli v Vlachos , 89 AD3d 984 [2d Dept 2011]). However, Court of Claims Act § 8-b "imposes a higher pleading standard than the CPLR. The Court must consider whether the allegations are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial" ( Hernandez v State of New York , 2023 NY Slip Op 23421 [Ct Cl, Marnin, J., 2023] , quoting Warney v State of New York , 16 NY3d at 435).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to accept the complaint’s facts as true, draw favorable inferences for the plaintiff, and determine whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Sydell Group LLC v. Ennismore Intl. Mgt. Ltd. · filed 2024-02-22(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 [a] [7], 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 into any cognizable legal theory” (Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v E. 149th Realty Corp., 104 AD3d 401, 403 [1st Dept 2013]).

On a motion to dismiss under § 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Anaya v. City of New York · filed 2024-02-23(a)(7)

Although bare legal conclusions are not presumed to be true on a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), 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 (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144 [2002]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, section 3211 requires liberal construction of the complaint, acceptance of its alleged facts as true, and every favorable inference for the plaintiff.

Doe v. Wilhelmina Models, Inc. · filed 2024-02-27(a)(7)

Yet what suffices to uphold a criminal indictment or conviction is not required to find that a civil complaint or petition states a cause of action for purposes of CPLR 3211. On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to that statute, we are obligated to give the pleading a liberal construction, "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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), courts construe the pleadings liberally, accept the complaint’s alleged facts as true, and give the plaintiff every possible favorable inference.

Brophy v. Big Bros. Big Sisters of Am., Inc. · filed 2024-02-28(a)(7)

In determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleadings are afforded a liberal construction, the facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, and the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s facts as true, gives the plaintiff every reasonable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. · filed 2024-02-29(a)(7)

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), "we must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference, and determine only whether the facts, as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp. , 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]; Richbell Info. Servs. v Jupiter Partners , 309 AD2d 288, 289 [1st Dept 2003]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Essex County Leathernecks Detachment 791, Mar. Corps. League v. Town of Ticonderoga · filed 2024-03-05(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action the Court " 'must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept as true the allegations contained therein, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and determine only whether the facts fit within any cognizable legal theory' " ( Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP , 126 AD3d 1183, 1185 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015], quoting He v Realty USA , 121 AD3d 1336, 1339 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Snyder v Brown Chiari, LLP , 116 AD3d 1116, 1117 [3d Dept 2014]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Paraco Gas Corp. v. Jay Z. Gerlitz & Assoc., Inc. · filed 2024-03-06(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88; Mehrhof v Monroe-Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist. , 168 AD3d 713, 714).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court liberally construes the complaint, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

98 Gates Ave. Corp. v. Bryan · filed 2024-03-13(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Palero Food Corp. v Zucker , 186 AD3d 493, 495 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co. , 21 NY3d 324, 334).

On a motion to dismiss under subsection (a)(7), courts liberally construe the complaint, accept its alleged facts as true, and give the plaintiff every possible favorable inference.

Gaviola v. Lamarre · filed 2024-03-13(a)(7)

Finally, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR §3211 (a)(7), courts afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and give the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss under § 3211(a)(7), the question is whether the party has a cause of action, rather than merely whether the pleading states one.

Nunez v. City of New York · filed 2024-03-13(a)(7)

Further, when evidentiary material is considered, the criteria is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one (Guggenheimer).

On a motion under subdivision (a)(7), the court accepts alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v. American Pipe & Tank Lining Co., Inc. · filed 2024-03-18(a)(7)

When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its allegations as true, and gives the plaintiff every favorable inference.

Sternberg v. Wiederman · filed 2024-03-20(a)(7)

When assessing the adequacy of a complaint in the context of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and provide the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87; Kimso Apts., LLC v Rivera , 180 AD3d 1033, 1034).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

SJB RE Holdings, LLC v. Gifford · filed 2024-03-21(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 321l(a), the Court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 13 7, 141-142 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted]).

Under § 3211(a)(7), a complaint survives a motion to dismiss if its allegations, liberally construed and accepted as true, state a cognizable cause of action.

Jusino v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc. · filed 2024-03-25(a)(7)

Defendant seeks dismissal of the discrimination claims based on Plaintiffs' failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). In considering dismissal under this theory, the complaint should be liberally construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all allegations must be accepted as true ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Initially, the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if, from the pleading's four corners, the court discerns factual allegations that, when taken together, manifest any cause of action cognizable at law, the motion will fail ( Guggenheimer v Ginzburg , 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to accept pleaded facts as true and draw favorable inferences, but bare legal conclusions without factual support do not suffice.

Rosenblatt v. State of New York · filed 2024-03-27(a)(7)

On a Motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court is required to accept the facts as alleged in the claim as true, accord claimants the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit with any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; Gioeli v Vlachos , 89 AD3d 984 [2d Dept 2011]). Notwithstanding the favorable treatment of such pleading, bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity do not suffice to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action ( see Matter of Holterbosch , 216 AD3d 783 [2d Dept 2023]; Barnes v Hodge , 118 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2014]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept the complaint’s facts as true, give plaintiffs every favorable inference, and decide whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Broadwall Mgt. Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co. · filed 2024-03-27(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), 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." (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88[1994] [citation omitted].)

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of objections to an estate accounting for failure to state a claim; the court must construe the objections liberally, accept alleged facts as true, and give them every favorable inference.

Matter of Clifford · filed 2024-03-28(a)(7)

Generally, a motion to dismiss objections to an estate accounting, like other pleadings, may be made pursuant to the grounds available under CPLR 3211(a) ( see Matter of Holterbosch , 216 AD3d 783 [2d Dept 2023]). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged as true, accord the pleading the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss under subsection (a)(7), the complaint receives a liberal construction, its alleged facts are presumed true, and the court asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

L&M Pilates Brooklyn Mgmt, LLC v. Lerner · filed 2024-03-28(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss [pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)], the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Thompson Bros. Pile Corp. v Rosenblum , 121 AD3d 672, 673 [2d Dept 2014] [citations omitted]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court asks whether the alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Thomas v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc. · filed 2024-03-28(a)(7)

The court's inquiry is to determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable theory (id.).

On a motion to dismiss under section 3211(a)(7), defendants bear the burden of showing that the complaint fails to state a viable cause of action.

Barrett v. Manhattan Detention Complex · filed 2024-03-29(a)(7)

On a CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) motion to dismiss, the defendants bear the burden of establishing that the complaint fails to state a viable cause of action ( Connolly v Long Is. Power Auth., 30 NY3d 719, 728 [2018]).

When a court considers evidence beyond the complaint on a motion to dismiss, dismissal requires showing that a material fact alleged by the plaintiff is false and not significantly disputed.

Williams v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's · filed 2024-04-01(a)(7)

Where, however, the court considers evidentiary material beyond the complaint, as it does here, the criterion becomes "whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275), but dismissal will not eventuate unless it is "shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all" and that "no significant dispute exists regarding it" (id.).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts the complaint’s facts as true, gives the plaintiff every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Jennings v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. · filed 2024-04-03(a)(7)

When considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for [*2]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" ( Belling v City of Long Beach , 168 AD3d 900, 901; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

CPLR § 3211(a)(7) does not allow dismissal for lack of prior written notice when establishing that lack requires proof outside the pleadings; the ground is evaluated on summary judgment.

Vasquez v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-04(a)(7)

Plaintiffs failure to address the grounds for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §3211 could warrant dismissal in the City's favor, however, lack of prior written notice under Administrative Code §7-201 is not a valid ground for a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211. Rather, a motion on that ground is in the nature of summary judgment, because the City must submit, as it has here, proof outside of the pleadings to establish that it did not receive any prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition (see e.g. Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the movant bears the burden of showing that the pleading fails to state a viable claim.

Queiroga v. 340 E. 93rd St. Corp. · filed 2024-04-04(a)(7)

On a CPLR § 3211 (a )(7) motion to dismiss, the [respondents] bear the burden of establishing that the complaint fails to state a viable cause of action (Connolly v Long Is. Power Auth., 30 NY3d 719, 728 [2018]).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court accepts pleaded facts as true, gives plaintiffs favorable inferences, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Khan v. Mediamorph, Inc. · filed 2024-04-07(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), 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."

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), dismissal is premature when the pleaded facts and inferences may support an enforceable claim for consequential damages.

S3 Partners, LLC v. Fidessa Corp. · filed 2024-04-08(a)(7)

"Dismissal under CPLR 321 l(a)(7) is [only] warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery" (Himmelstein, 27 NY3d at 175 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). ... This may be correct. Dismissal at this time is premature.

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept pleaded facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Alaimo v. New York State Nurses Assn. · filed 2024-04-09(a)(7)

On a motion brought under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff1 ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires courts reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim to accept the pleading's allegations as true, give the claimant every favorable inference, and dismiss only when the alleged facts would not support the requested relief.

Matter of Koska v. Koska · filed 2024-04-10(a)(7)

"When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), which is proper" in Family Court proceedings because they "are civil in nature, we afford the petition a liberal construction, accept the allegations contained therein as true, and grant the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference" ( Matter of Cote v Berger , 112 AD3d 821, 822 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Sult v Sult , 165 AD3d 1152, 1152-1153).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, with the petition considered, its allegations deemed true, and the petitioner given every favorable inference.

Matter of Cee-Jay Real Estate Dev. Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation · filed 2024-04-10(a)(7)

"On a motion [to dismiss] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f), only the petition is considered, all of its allegations are deemed true, and the petitioner is accorded the benefit of every possible inference" ( Matter of Tyson v Town of Ramapo , 165 AD3d 805, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and requires the court to construe the pleading liberally, accept alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff favorable inferences, and determine whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Hughes v. Vento · filed 2024-04-10(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; DeMarzo v DeMarzo , 150 AD3d 1202).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept pleaded facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide whether those facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Cabrera v. Deadwood Constr., Inc. · filed 2024-04-10(a)(7)

Rather, when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman , 31 NY3d 30, 38; Nonnon v City of New York , 9 NY3d 825, 827; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Gutierrez v Bactolac Pharm., Inc. , 210 AD3d at 747).

Section 3211(a)(3) permits dismissal for lack of standing, and section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Plaut · filed 2024-04-12(a)(3), (a)(7)

CPLR 3211(a)(3) provides that a party may move to dismiss one or more causes of action for lack of standing. CPLR 3211(a)(7) provides that a party may move to dismiss one of more causes of action for failure to state a cause of action. ... In the complaint, plaintiff fails to allege that it has ownership and a right to possession of the Property. ... The complaint, therefore, fails to allege a requisite element of the cause of action for partition and sale, and dismissal is warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Moreover, insofar as it is undisputed that the foreclosure sale of the Property never took place after the dismissal of the Foreclosure Action insofar as alleged against defendant Renata Plaut, the Plaut defendants correctly contend that plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the partition action. Accordingly, the Plaut defendants are also entitled to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint's allegations are presumed true at the pleading stage, and factual disputes are not a basis for dismissal.

Neu v. Amelia US LLC · filed 2024-04-16(a)(7)

Defendants' factual disputes concerning plaintiff's calculations and whether he was terminated for cause are not a basis for dismissal, as the allegations in the complaint are "presumed to be true" at the pleading stage ( Rivietz v Wolohojian , 38 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2007]).

Subsection (a)(7) requires the court to accept pleaded facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide only whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Paden v. Brooklyn Museum of Arts · filed 2024-04-17(a)(7)

"In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) 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"

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and assess whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Molokotos-Liederman v. Molokotos · filed 2024-04-19(a)(7)

When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory.

Section 3211(a)(7) tests whether the pleadings' four corners show a legally cognizable cause of action.

Lincoln Sponsor LLC v. Wellington · filed 2024-04-24(a)(7)

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action, must be denied if the factual allegations contained within "the pleadings' four corners manifest any cause of action cognizable at law." (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-52 [2002]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and requires liberal construction of the pleadings.

Lik v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-23(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR §3211 (a)(7), courts afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and give the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

Section 3211(a)(7) requires dismissal when the pleading does not state a legally cognizable cause of action and directs the court to accept factual allegations as true while giving favorable inferences.

Almodovar v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-25(a)(7)

When considering a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), a court must accept the factual allegations of the pleadings as true, affording the non-moving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determining "only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( see D.K. Prop., Inc. v Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 168 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2019]; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267 [1st Dept 2004]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a pleading fails to state a cause of action.

Department of Envtl. Protection of the City of N.Y. v. Board of Mgrs. of the Cassa NY Condominium · filed 2024-04-26(a)(7)

In short, plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that they have have a cause of action against the unit owners of the Cassa NY Condominium to hold them jointly and severally liable for the metered charges assessed against the entire building—in addition to the claim for those charges that plaintiffs are already asserting in this action against the condominium's board of managers. The motion by several unit owners to dismiss the claims against them under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is granted.

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and determine whether they fit a cognizable legal theory.

Real World Holdings LLC v. 393 W. Broadway Corp. · filed 2024-04-29(a)(7)

When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory.

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to accept pleaded facts as true, give plaintiffs favorable inferences, and determine whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Soloviev v. Ross Sch. · filed 2024-05-01(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR [*2]3211(a)(7), the pleading is afforded a liberal construction, [and] the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Landa v Brown Chiari, LLP , 219 AD3d 1507, 1508).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and requires the court to treat allegations as true while giving the pleader favorable inferences.

Matter of Atane Engrs., Architects & Land Surveyors, D.P.C. v. Nassau County · filed 2024-05-01(a)(7)

"On a motion [to dismiss] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f), only the petition is considered, all of its allegations are deemed true, and the petitioner is accorded the benefit of every [*2]possible [favorable] inference"

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to accept the complaint's facts as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Khan v. Vasilenko · filed 2024-05-01(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87; Buchanan v Law Offs. of Sheldon E. Green, P.C. , 215 AD3d 790, 791).

Section 3211 permits dismissal of a complaint before discovery when it fails to state a cause of action.

IntegrateNYC, Inc. v. State of New York · filed 2024-05-02

Prior to any discovery, the State, the City, and the intervenor defendant Parents Defending Education (PDE), [FN4] filed CPLR 3211 motions to dismiss the amended complaint based on a failure to state a cause of action. ... The motion court did not address defendants' extensive arguments for dismissal of the amended complaint based on a failure to state a cause of action. Rather, in a cursory decision, the court dismissed the amended complaint as nonjusticiable, focusing entirely on plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. This was error. We now modify. ... However, the complaint describes a justiciable dispute, and it adequately states its causes of action. At the threshold of this action that is all that is required.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept complaint allegations as true, give favorable inferences, and decide whether they fit any cognizable legal theory.

Falso v. Children & Family Servs. · filed 2024-05-03(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), we must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) where the court has considered evidentiary material in support of or in opposition to the motion, "[t]he criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [the proponent] has stated one" ( id. at 88 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe pleadings liberally, accept alleged facts as true, and give plaintiffs every favorable inference when deciding whether a cause of action is stated.

Rodriguez v. Bitchin' Inc. · filed 2024-05-03(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), courts afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and give the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and requires courts to accept pleaded facts as true while giving the plaintiff every favorable inference.

TV Tech Mgrs., Inc. v. Cohen · filed 2024-05-08(a)(7)

In assessing the adequacy of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff 'the benefit of every possible favorable inference' ( J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co. , 21 NY3d 324, 334, quoting AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 NY3d 582, 591 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a pleading fails to state a cause of action.

Matter of Lubrano v. Morgenstern · filed 2024-05-08(a)(7)

it is further, ORDERED that the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition is granted; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought ( see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman , 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to state a cause of action for relief in the nature of mandamus.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Barbetta v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC · filed 2024-05-08(a)(8), (a)(7)

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted Kardashian's motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). "In opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Serota v Cooper , 216 AD3d 1019, 1020). ... Additionally, the Supreme Court properly granted NBCUniversal's motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe the complaint liberally, accept alleged facts as true, give plaintiffs favorable inferences, and determine whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Stefanik v. Hochul · filed 2024-05-09(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), courts afford the complaint a "liberal construction" and "accept the facts as alleged [therein] as true, accord [the] plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC , 34 NY3d 116, 123 [2019]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Gopstein v. Bellinson Law, LLC · filed 2024-05-09(a)(7)

The court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he failed to state a cause of action ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of a petition when the predicate notice is legally defective and cannot be cured.

Newport Gardens Apt., L.P. v. Surles · filed 2024-05-10(a)(7)

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), because the predicate notice defective and it cannot be cured. ... The Court disagrees with the Petitioner and grants Respondent's motion dismissing the petition.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence, while CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when the pleading fails to state a cause of action.

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP v. Marcus & Cinelli LLP · filed 2024-05-14(a)(1), (a)(7)

First, the affidavit that David Marcus submitted on the motion does not constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Arts & Fashion Group Corp. v Cyclops Prod., Inc., 120 AD3d 436, 438 [1st Dept 2014]). Second, Marcus's affidavit does not conclusively establish that plaintiff has no cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636 [1976]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and requires liberal construction of the pleading, acceptance of alleged facts as true, and favorable inferences for the plaintiff.

Olsen v. Butler · filed 2024-05-15(a)(7)

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87; Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth. , 47 AD3d 653, 654).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to construe pleadings liberally, accept factual allegations as true, and give the claimant every favorable inference when deciding whether they state a cause of action.

Joan Ford Revocable Living Trust v. Ford · filed 2024-05-15(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take the allegations of the complaint as true, and provide the petitioner the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action without a time limit.

Matter of Y.M. v. D.S. · filed 2024-05-17(a)(7)

Even so, an objection to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time ( see Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc. v Fiero , 10 NY3d 12, 17 [2008]; Jose M. v Angel V ., 99 AD3d 243, 246 [2d Dept 2012]), and there is no time restriction for a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( see David D. Siegal & Patrick M. Connors, New York Practice §§ 272, 577 [6th ed 2018]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept the complaint's facts as true, give the plaintiff favorable inferences, and decide whether the alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Alegre v. City of New York · filed 2024-05-28(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss brought under CPLR § 3211 (a) (7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994] [citations omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a pleading fails to state a legally cognizable cause of action and requires liberal construction of the pleading.

Ping Cheung v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2024-06-03(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss brought under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), “the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court construes the complaint liberally, accepts its alleged facts as true, gives the plaintiff every possible inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Profeta v. Caulo · filed 2024-05-15(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC , 54 AD3d 703, 703-704; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assoc. PC · filed 2024-06-04(a)(7)

ORDERED that the bra1 ch of defendant's motion to ctismiss the comp laint pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7). on the groUI ds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for a de novo adjudication of the arb itrati n dispute pursuant to CPLR 5106(c) because the amount in dispute exclusives of attorney's ees, interest, and other fees is less than $5000, is GRANTED, ... This constitutes the decis on and order of the Court.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe pleadings liberally, accept alleged facts as true, give plaintiffs every possible inference, and decide whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Stanton v. Montee · filed 2024-06-05(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court "must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." ( Constructamax, Inc. v Weber , 109 AD3d 574, 574 [2d Dept 2013]).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively resolves factual issues and disposes of the claim, while CPLR 3211(a)(7) asks whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Two Rds. Shared Trust v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC · filed 2024-06-05(a)(1), (a)(7)

To succeed on a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion to dismiss, defendants have the "burden of showing that the relied-upon documentary evidence 'resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim'" ( Fortis Fin. Servs. v Fimat Futures USA, Inc. , 290 AD2d 383, 383 [1st Dept 2002], quoting Scadura v Robillard , 256 AD2d 567, 567 [2d Dept 1998]). On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court accepts the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accords plaintiffs the benefit of any possible favorable inference, and determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83 [1994]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a cause of action, while requiring liberal construction and favorable inferences for the plaintiff.

Sander v. Westchester Reform Temple · filed 2024-06-05(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts therein must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference" ( Angeli v Barket , 211 AD3d 896, 897; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe the complaint liberally, accept its alleged facts as true, draw every favorable inference for the plaintiff, and decide only whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Louis Monteleone Fibres, Ltd. v. Hudson Baylor Brookhaven, LLC · filed 2024-06-05(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Weinstein v Levitin , 208 AD3d 531, 532).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must construe the pleading liberally, accept its factual allegations as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and decide whether the facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Doe v. Wilhelmina Models, Inc. · filed 2024-06-06(a)(7)

Yet what suffices to uphold a criminal indictment or conviction is not required to find that a civil complaint or petition states a cause of action for purposes of CPLR 3211. On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to that statute, we are obligated to give the pleading a liberal construction, "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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to determine whether the pleading states a cause of action.

AA Med., P.C. v. Miller · filed 2024-06-06(a)(7)

"When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action" ( Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc. , 94 AD3d 682, 682 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg , 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Sokol v Leader , 74 AD3d 1180, 1180-1181 [2010]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept the complaint's factual allegations as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and determine whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Aretakis v. Avis · filed 2024-06-10(a)(7)

In assessing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 § (a) (7) to dismiss a complaint, a court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord th~ plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [I 994]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to give a complaint a liberal construction, accept its allegations as true, and give the plaintiff every favorable inference when deciding whether it states a cause of action.

Thompson v. City of New York · filed 2024-06-11(a)(7)

"When reviewing a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a court must give the complaint a liberal construction, accept the allegations as true and provide plaintiffs with the benefit of every favorable inference" ( Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman , 31 NY3d 30, 38 [2018]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, with alleged facts accepted as true and viewed favorably to the plaintiff.

Templeton v. Roach · filed 2024-06-12(a)(7)

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), 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'" ( Nonnon v City of New York , 9 NY3d 825, 827, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court accepts pleaded facts as true, gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, and asks only whether they fit a cognizable legal theory.

Bailey v. City of New York · filed 2024-06-12(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must [*2]"accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [the] plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Maritnez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, based on whether the pleaded facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Fleming v. Jenna's Forest Homeowners' Assn., Inc. · filed 2024-06-13(a)(7)

While the motions were made after answer, there is no requirement that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be made before joinder of issue and such motion "may be made at any subsequent time or in a later pleading, if one is permitted" (CPLR 3211[*2][e]). ... "On 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 plaintiff[s] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Brown v University of Rochester , 224 AD3d 1180, 1181 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Pierce v Archer Daniels Midland, Co. , 221 AD3d 1382, 1383 [3d Dept 2023]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires dismissal when a complaint fails to state a cause of action, with allegations generally accepted as true.

Olympia Capital Corp. v. Yi · filed 2024-06-18(a)(7)

On a CPLR § 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, the court must decide whether the complaint states a cause of action. The allegations contained in a complaint are to be accepted as true when deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe the complaint liberally, presume the alleged facts are true, give the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine whether those facts fit within any cognizable theory.

Damon v. Clove Lakes Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ctr., Inc. · filed 2024-06-05(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable theory" ( Watts v City of New York , 186 AD3d 1577, 1578).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action when the alleged facts do not fit any cognizable legal theory.

Escobar v. Mercy Med. Ctr. · filed 2024-06-11(a)(7)

With respect to that branch of Mercy's motion which is pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), it is well settled on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83 [1994]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires courts to accept pleaded facts as true and determine whether they fit within any cognizable legal theory when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Oluwo v. Mills · filed 2024-06-20(a)(7)

'On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' ( Floral Park Ophthalmology, P.C. v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, LLP , 216 AD3d 1136, 1136, quoting Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP , 186 AD3d 1504, 1505; see Matter of 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assoc., L.P. v County of Suffolk , 216 AD3d 939, 941).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept complaint facts as true, give plaintiffs every favorable inference, and decide only whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Blooming Home Realty, LLC v. Infinity Holdings Northeast, LLC · filed 2024-06-20(a)(7)

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint, 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" ( Sokol v Leader , 74 AD3d 1180, 1181 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires dismissal when a pleading fails to state a cause of action after giving it a liberal construction and accepting its factual allegations as true.

Grand S. Point, LLC v. Bassett · filed 2024-06-20(a)(7)

It is well settled that "[i]n a civil action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) requires the court to give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and to dismiss the pleading if, upon that analysis, it fails to state a cause of action" ( Dodson v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam , 182 AD3d 109, 112 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to determine whether the pleading states a cause of action, accepting allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.

Minor v. Essence Ventures, LLC · filed 2024-06-23(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must consider "whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action" Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 (1994); Polite v. Marquis Marriot Hotel , 195 AD3d 965, 966-967 (2d Dept. 2021); Morales v. Triborough Podiatry, P.C. , 184 AD3d 754, 755 (2d Dept. 2020); Thompson Bros. Pile Corp. v Rosenblum , 121 AD3d 672, 673 (2d Dept. 2014); Reaves v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 2020 NY Slip Op 32480(U), 2020 NY Misc. LEXIS 3626) (Sup. Ct., NY Co. 2020); Krause v. Lancer & Loader Group, LLC , 40 Misc 3d 385, 391 (Sup. Ct., NY Co. 2013). ... Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) should be DENIED.