N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3211

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), an incomplete plan document did not conclusively establish a defense or show that the pleaded benefits claim lacked a factual basis.

NYU Langone Hosps. v. Robinson · filed 2025-02-05(a)(1), (a)(7)

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted only if "the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Russo v Crisona , 219 AD3d 920, 922, quoting Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326). Where evidentiary material is considered in connection with a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, dismissal should not eventuate "unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it" ( Guggenheimer v Ginzburg , 43 NY2d 268, 275). The Fund failed to meet either of these standards for dismissal on its motion. ... However, the Fund only attached portions of the SPD to its motion. Since the Fund failed to attach the document in its entirety, its evidence was inconclusive, and failed to establish that Robinson had no cause of action ( see Fricano v Law Offs. of Tisha Adams, LLC , 194 AD3d 1016, 1018; Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC , 192 AD3d 982, 983-984).

Section 3211(a)(1) requires conclusive documentary evidence to dismiss a claim; evidence that does not conclusively contradict the plaintiff’s allegations is insufficient.

Hubshman v. 1010 Tenants Corp. · filed 2025-02-05(a)(1)

Defendants have not met their burden on a motion to dismiss by producing conclusive evidence that contradicts the facts alleged by Plaintiff that go to lack of proper notice.

Emails can qualify as documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

1211 Gilbert Ave. Holdings LLC v. Berri · filed 2025-02-06(a)(1)

Of note, it is undisputed that the emails submitted are documentary evidence for within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( Seaman v Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP , 176 AD3d 538, 539 [1st Dept 2019] ["Emails may be considered as documentary evidence if those papers are 'essentially undeniable"]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence, including an unambiguous contract, conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Behler v. Tao · filed 2025-02-13(a)(1)

A party is entitled to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) where "documentary evidence," such as an unambiguous contract, "conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law" ( Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , 5 NY3d 561, 571 [2005]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Johnson v. 275 Clermont, LLC · filed 2025-02-13(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law ( see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence supports dismissal only if it utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Altman v. Orseck · filed 2025-02-19(a)(1)

"'A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law'" ( Ripa v Petrosyants , 203 AD3d 770, 772, quoting Mawere v Landau , 130 AD3d 986, 987; see Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 215 AD3d 907, 908). ... Here, contrary to the defendants' contention, their evidentiary submissions failed to utterly refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations that the defendants violated Judiciary Law § 487.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), contracts describing a defendant’s duties do not warrant dismissal when they fail to conclusively refute potential liability for the work actually performed.

D & A Grandview LLC v. 60 Davidson LLC · filed 2025-02-20(a)(1)

When moving for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the motion will only be granted if the party submits documentary evidence that utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law ( see Meyer v New York-Presbyterian Hosp. Queens , 167 AD3d 996, 997 [2018]). ... In any event, the contracts submitted by GEI do not establish a complete lack of liability resulting from the work actually performed as contemplated in them.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

World Baseball Network LLC v. Wolf & Bear Mktg. Inc. · filed 2025-02-28(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint, "conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law."

Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), a website screenshot that does not conclusively refute the plaintiff’s allegations cannot support dismissal as documentary evidence.

Zadok v. Lomner · filed 2025-03-03(a)(1)

Therefore, it cannot be considered documentary evidence for the purpose of a CPLR § 3211(a)(1) motion.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations.

99th Ave. Holdings, LLC v. Schatz · filed 2025-03-13(a)(1)

In sum, the documentary evidence defendant submits does not utterly refute plaintiff's factual allegations.

Dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence that conclusively resolves the factual issues and disposes of the claim.

Dersam v. Ontario Ins. Co. · filed 2025-03-14(a)(1)

Even assuming, arguendo, that an email may constitute documentary evidence for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) ... here, the email does not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law inasmuch as the printed copy of the email does not establish that a sworn statement in proof of loss form was actually attached to the email ( see generally Bailey v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 133 AD2d 915, 916 [3d Dept 1987]) .

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Crehan v. Richardson · filed 2025-03-14(a)(1)

Similarly, dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is appropriate only if defendants' documentary evidence " 'utterly refutes the plaintiff[s'] factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law' " ( Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC , 42 NY3d 321, 343 [2024], quoting Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal only when it utterly refutes the complaint’s allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Stewart v. Fein Such & Crain, LLP · filed 2025-03-19(a)(1)

Moreover, "[t]o the extent that the evidence submitted by [FSC and the lender defendants] constituted documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1), such evidence failed to utterly refute the allegations of the . . . complaint and did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law" with regard to the malicious prosecution cause of action insofar as asserted against FSC, Christiana Trust, and PennyMac Loan Services ( Tueme v Lezama , 217 AD3d 715, 716).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), an affidavit is not documentary evidence, and documents support dismissal only if they conclusively establish a defense or utterly refute the complaint’s factual allegations.

Silber Inv. Props., Ltd. v. BJG Islandia Realty, LLC · filed 2025-03-19(a)(1)

Here, Kukiela's affidavit was not documentary within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) and should not have been considered as such ( see Churong Liu v Gabbay , 219 AD3d 459, 461; Phillips v Taco Bell Corp. , 152 AD3d 806, 807). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, to the extent the other evidence submitted by the defendants was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish a defense to the claims as a matter of law or utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations ( see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326; Phillips v Taco Bell Corp. , 152 AD3d at 807).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal when it conclusively establishes a defense to the claim.

Burrows v. 75-25 153rd St., LLC · filed 2025-03-20(a)(1)

On a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and all factual allegations must be accepted as true; "[w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see also 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002] ["Dismissal under CPLR 3211 [a] [1] is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law"] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). ... Defendant's documentary evidence submitted with its motion to dismiss refutes plaintiffs' allegations that defendant improperly revoked a preferential rent upon plaintiff's lease renewal because, pursuant to agency guidance applicable at the time, plaintiff's rent concession was not a prorated concession but instead a limited concession for a specified period. That portion of the Appellate Division order is therefore affirmed.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when an employment agreement qualifies as documentary evidence and conclusively establishes a defense.

Colt v. Nathan Littauer Hosp. · filed 2025-03-20(a)(1)

Regardless of the adequacy of plaintiff's pleadings, under the employment agreement, which qualifies as documentary evidence for the purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Carr v Wegmans Food [*4]Markets, Inc., 182 AD3d at 668), defendant clearly had the right to require plaintiff to comply with the vaccination policy.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), affidavits and deposition testimony do not qualify as documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss.

Matter of Catapano · filed 2025-03-20(a)(1)

The affirmations and affidavits submitted by respondents and the transcripts of their deposition testimonies do not qualify as documentary evidence; hence, the Court declines to rely on those items to eliminate several factual questions that are enumerated below ( see Matter of Walker , 117 AD3d at 839; Fontanetta v John Doe 1 , 73 AD3d at 85; Discussion of application of state banking laws and related factual issues, supra at 21-22).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence supports dismissal only if it conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Stamp Rite Tool & Die Corp. v. Branded Leather, Inc. · filed 2025-03-26(a)(1)

Therefore, since the lease failed to conclusively establish a defense against the tenant defendants' counterclaims as a matter of law, the court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the tenant defendants' counterclaims.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence supports dismissal only when it conclusively establishes a defense; inferences drawn from a receipt are insufficient.

Engel v. Smith · filed 2025-03-27(a)(1)

However, to provide a basis for dismissal, the documentary evidence must conclusively establish a defense to the action ( see Spoleta Constr., LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK /Ltd. , 27 NY3d 933 [2016]). The Receipt establishes only what is on its face, which is the services for which C&F billed the Smith defendants. The inferences offered by C&F as to the cost of a complete septic replacement based on later estimates from another contractor might indeed be logical, but they are inferences, nonetheless. ... The C&F motion under Rule 3211(a)(1) fails.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense.

Selvaggio v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-27(a)(1)

“A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(1) may only be granted where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter ... of law.”

Documentary evidence offered to support dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1) must be admissible and properly authenticated.

Stumacher v. Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

Here, there is no documentary evidence such as a general release or an agreement to arbitrate that would be evidence to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (1). Evidence must be in admissible form and properly authenticated (Doe v. Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLLC 193 AD3d 410 [1 st Dept. 2021 ]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only if that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations.

City of New York v. Heritage Health & Hous., Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

Courts grant motions under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) “only if the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations . . . .” (Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 42 NY3d 321, 343 [2024] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). According to Heritage, the Agreement utterly refutes plaintiff’s contention that the Agreement is a license. The Court disagrees for several reasons.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence conclusive enough to establish a defense; a signature page without the full agreement is insufficient.

DiPietro v. Gottlieb · filed 2025-04-07(a)(1)

The signature page of an agreement, without the ... entirety of the agreement, cannot be considered documentary evidence conclusive enough to succeed on a CPLR 3211(a)(l) motion to dismiss.

Section 3211(a)(1) does not permit dismissal based on an affidavit that merely disputes the complaint’s allegations without conclusively establishing a defense.

K.M. v. A.G. · filed 2025-04-11(a)(1)

Similarly, defendant’s affidavit does not constitute the type of documentary evidence that may lead to dismissal of a pleading, given that he mainly disputes plaintiff’s version of events, and thus does not utterly refute plaintiff’s factual allegations and establish a defense as a matter of law (see Katsorhis v 718 W. Beech St., LLC, 234 AD3d 744 [2d Dept 2025] [affidavit did not establish that material fact alleged in complaint was not fact at all and that no significant dispute existed regarding it]; Wright v City of New York, 223 AD3d 547 [1st Dept 2024] [manager’s affidavit did not constitute documentary evidence that conclusively established defense to plaintiff’s complaint]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law.

Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. v. Grande Gusto Ristorante LLC · filed 2025-04-11(a)(1)

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for a complaint to be dismissed if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.” ... The documentary evidence of the Lease conclusively bars the Landlord’s negligence claims against Defendants, therefore the Lease also conclusively bars Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against Defendants.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a defendant must show that documentary evidence conclusively resolves the factual issues and defeats the claim; a factual dispute over notice prevented dismissal here.

Wolf v. Mony Life Ins. Co. · filed 2025-04-14(a)(1)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), "the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the documentary evidence conclusively resolves all factual issues and that plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law" ( Robinson v Robinson , 303 AD2d 234, 235 [1st Dept 2003]). ... However, an issue of fact remains here. ... Accordingly, the breach of contract action must survive.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the documents conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law.

Carda v. DePaulo · filed 2025-04-15(a)(1)

On a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the motion may be granted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the [non-moving party's] factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( CGreen, LLC v Quantum Impact Steel, LLC , 232 AD3d 974, 975 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see also Parkoff v Stavsky , 109 AD3d 646, 647 [2d Dept 2013]). In considering such a motion, the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take the allegations of the non-moving party as true, and provide the non-moving party the benefit of every possible inference ( see Crepin v Fogarty , 59 AD3d 837, 838 [3d Dept 2009]). Here, the documents relied upon by Ms. Carda do not conclusively establish her defense of payment as a matter of law.

A gift letter did not qualify as documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Patel v. Edmund · filed 2025-04-16(a)(1)

Here, in addition to unsuccessfully raising the defense of usury with respect to the promissory note, the defendant relied on a "Gift Letter," which did not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Cives Corp. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc. , 97 AD3d 713, 714; Granada Condominium III Assn. v Palomino , 78 AD3d 996).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Smith v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon · filed 2025-04-23(a)(1)

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted "only where the documentary evidence [*2]utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Goshen Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326). ... Here, the Bank submitted evidentiary material establishing that it had timely filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal order ( see Hart v New York City Hous. Auth. , 161 AD3d 724, 724-725), and therefore, the 2011 foreclosure action was still pending and unresolved, which precluded this RPAPL 1501(4) action to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage ( see Davis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB , 219 AD3d at 799; Mizrahi v US Bank, N.A. , 156 AD3d 617, 618). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Bank's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal only if it utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Keller v. Keller · filed 2025-04-30(a)(1)

Moreover, "[a] motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law" ( Lam v Weiss , 219 AD3d 713, 716 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), emails and messages that do not utterly refute the complaint’s allegations cannot support dismissal as documentary evidence.

Cummo v. Kerzner · filed 2025-05-05(a)(1)

While defendants argue that the content of the documents is undeniable, the documents do not utterly refute plaintiffs’ claim that Cummo was an employee and that the Contract was a sham.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), disputed pay records do not warrant dismissal unless they utterly refute the complaint’s allegations and conclusively establish a defense.

Granizo v. Krystal Fruits & Vegetables, Inc. · filed 2025-05-07(a)(1)

Further, the Supreme Court should have denied dismissal of the first through third and fifth causes of action in the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's pay stubs and handwritten records of his hours worked, the accuracy of which is in dispute, did not utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establish a defense to the first through third and fifth causes of action in the amended complaint as a matter of law ( see Sobel v Ansanelli , 98 AD3d 1020, 1022).

An affidavit submitted in support of a motion to dismiss does not constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Conte v. Tri-State Tech., Inc. · filed 2025-05-07(a)(1)

Here, the affidavit submitted by the defendants in support of their motion does not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Davis v Henry , 212 AD3d at 598; Phillips v Taco Bell Corp. , 152 AD3d 806, 807).

Section 3211(a)(1) does not warrant dismissal of a fraud claim when the documentary evidence does not utterly refute it.

Clear Haven Inv. Fund, LP - Clear Haven Credit Opportunities Fund II Series v. ZAGS SPV 1 LLC · filed 2025-05-07(a)(1)

The “documentary evidence” does not utterly refute this claim either. To wit, and by way of example, the spreadsheet lists Rare Carat not as a prefunded account and instead lists its card type as “charge” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Frye Fisheries, LLC v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (Am.), Inc. · filed 2025-05-08(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1 ) may be granted only if the docum ntary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegati ns of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins Co of NY, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002); Granada Condominium Ill Assn v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996, 996 [2d Dept 201 OJ; ontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78, 83 [2d Dept 2010)).

A substitution-of-counsel stipulation can support dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1) when it conclusively refutes allegations that a party was left without counsel or time to find replacement counsel.

Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP v. Kestenbaum · filed 2025-05-09(a)(1)

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for dismissal of a complaint if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” ... The Court will not rely on the email as documentary evidence, rather the substitution of counsel stipulation, sufficiently defeat the allegations in defendants’ counterclaims. The stipulations conclusively establish, that contrary to the allegations in the counterclaims, defendants were not abruptly left without counsel or prejudiced because they lacked a sufficient time to find replacement counsel.

Section 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law to support dismissal.

Domen Holding Co. v. Sanders · filed 2025-05-13(a)(1)

Furthermore, contrary to defendant's argument, the documentary evidence presented by defendant is insufficient to conclusively establish a defense to any of the causes of action as a matter of law (CPLR 3211[a][1]; see 150 Broadway N.Y. Assocs., L.P. v Bodner , 14 AD3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2004]).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's allegations or conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Atlasman v. Korol · filed 2025-05-14(a)(1)

Moreover, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion either did not constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1), or failed to utterly refute the plaintiffs' allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law ( see Shah v Mitra , 171 AD3d 971, 973; Eisner v Cusumano Constr., Inc. , 132 AD3d 940, 942).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence utterly refutes an alleged fact and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

FESI Holdings, Inc. v. Kamylon Holdings, LLC · filed 2025-05-15(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (1) may be appropriately granted where the evidence utterly refutes a fact alleged by the plaintiff and conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Interstate Indem. Co. v East 77 Owners Co., LLC, 224 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2024]; M & E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 189 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2020]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the documents conclusively refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations; medical opinions and diagnoses that are not incontrovertible do not suffice.

Lobosco v. City of New York · filed 2025-05-20(a)(1)

None of the documents proffered by Defendants “utterly refutes” Plaintiff’s factual allegations. Medical assessments, therapist letters, and restricted duty certificates reflect opinions and diagnoses—none of which are incontrovertible or dispositive as a matter of law (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314 [2002]; 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144 [2002]).

An affidavit and an email do not qualify as documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Rosenfeld v. Brody · filed 2025-05-21(a)(1)

Further, to the extent the defendants rely upon an affidavit and a certain email, neither constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Porat v Rybina , 177 AD3d at 633; Phillips v Taco Bell Corp. , 152 AD3d at 807). Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the evidence utterly refutes the petition’s allegations and conclusively establishes a defense.

Ford v. Ford · filed 2025-05-23(a)(1)

Here, the submissions in support of occupant's motion either do not constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) or fail to utterly refute the petition's allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law ( see Lewis & Murphy Realty, Inc. v Colletti , 187 AD3d 731, 733 [2020]; 25-01 Newkirk Ave., LLC v Everest Natl. Ins. Co. , 127 AD3d 850, 851 [2015]; GIT LEB, LLC v Golphin , 2016 NY Slip Op 50713[U]).

Documentary evidence supports dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1) only if it utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations.

Brooklyn Bound Realty Corp. v. Charles · filed 2025-05-28(a)(1)

Since the submitted documentary evidence "failed to resolve conclusively all questions of fact" as to whether the buyer was financially able to purchase the property, the defendant failed to utterly refute the plaintiff's allegation that it procured a buyer who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property ( Davis v Farrell Fritz, P.C. , 201 AD3d 869, 873; see Ming Long Liu v Kirkwood , 222 AD3d 861, 862). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action alleging breach of contract.

Affidavits, emails, and letters do not qualify as documentary evidence for a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Bernstein v. Jacobson · filed 2025-05-28(a)(1)

Here, the affidavit, emails, and letter submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see County of Westchester v Unity Mech. Corp. , 165 AD3d at 884-885; Cives Corp. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc. , 97 AD3d at 714).

An affidavit does not constitute documentary evidence for a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Zatorski v. Island Transp. Corp. · filed 2025-05-29(a)(1)

To the extent the affidavit of ITC's president attempted to supply such missing facts, the affidavit does not constitute documentary evidence for purposes of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion ( see Art & Fashion Group Corp. v Cyclops Prod., Inc. , 120 AD3d 436, 438 [1st Dept 2014]; Tsimerman v Janoff , 40 AD3d 242, 242 [1st Dept 2007]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when authentic, unambiguous documentary evidence conclusively refutes the plaintiff’s allegations and establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Troche v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2025-05-29(a)(1)

Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted where the movant submits documentary evidence that “utterly refutes the Plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.” ... To satisfy this standard, the evidence must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable—not merely evidence that creates a factual dispute.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Harco Constr., LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. · filed 2025-06-04(a)(1)

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by Scottsdale, specifically the Supreme Court's order entered October 9, 2014, and this Court's decision and order dated March 15, 2017, failed to utterly refute the factual allegations in the complaint and conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3211[a][1]; see generally Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d at 326).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence establishing that an unambiguous venue provision requires the claims to be brought in another forum.

JLJ Prods., LLC v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC · filed 2025-06-10(a)(1)

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), based on documentary evidence.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Board of Mgrs. of the Philip House Condominium v. 141 E. 88th St., LLC · filed 2025-06-11(a)(1)

Therefore, the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law as to the first cause of action (breach of contract), fourth (contribution), and fifth (common law indemnification) causes of action.

On a motion under § 3211(a)(1), text messages, emails, COVID-19 Executive Orders, and a city buildings complaint page did not qualify as documentary evidence or conclusively establish a defense.

Eserac Realty Corp. v. Social Adult Care, Inc. · filed 2025-06-12(a)(1)

The material submitted by defendants—text messages and emails between the parties, COVID-19 Executive Orders, and a New York City Department of Buildings complaints page—are not documentary evidence for the purpose of this motion, nor do they conclusively establish a defense to plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law.

Monarch Condominium v. Bloom and Streit, CPAs, LLP · filed 2025-06-16(a)(1)

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for dismissal of a complaint if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.”

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively refutes the plaintiff’s allegations and resolves all factual issues as a matter of law.

Arkin, Simon & Simon Partnership v. Rockaway Crossing, LLC · filed 2025-07-02(a)(1)

"A [*2]motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the claims at issue" ( id. [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see First Korean Church of N.Y. v 35 Ave & Parsons, LLC , 221 AD3d 971, 972; Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 215 AD3d 907, 908; Yue Fung USA Enters., Inc. v Novelty Crystal Corp. , 105 AD3d 840, 841).

Section 3211(a)(1) does not treat letters as documentary evidence supporting dismissal.

Westwood Funding v. Dominic Produce, LLC · filed 2025-07-07(a)(1)

Under CPLR § 321l(a)(l), the letters are not documentary evidence (see Rodolico, 114 AD3d at 925; Anderson, 139 AD3d at 771; NYSCEF Doc. No. 59).

Evidence supporting a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) qualifies as documentary evidence only if it is unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable.

Walrond v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. · filed 2025-07-30(a)(1)

"In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" ( Bronxville Scout Comm. v County of Westchester , 229 AD3d 753, 754-755 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leader v Steinway, Inc. , 180 AD3d 886, 887).

Affidavits do not qualify as documentary evidence for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

All Nations Steel Corp. v. KSK Constr. Group, LLC · filed 2025-07-30(a)(1)

The affidavits submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Davis v Henry , 212 AD3d at 598; Bonavita v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 185 AD3d at 893-894).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), an affirmation is not documentary evidence, and leases that do not definitively establish the relationships among corporate entities do not support dismissal.

Stone v. Dim Sum Palace, Inc. · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

Likewise, the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(l) is denied. The affirmation submitted does not constitute documentary evidence (Bou v Llamoza, 173 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2019], and the leases submitted do not definitively establish the relationship amongst the various corporate entities.

Under § 3211(a)(1), judicial records with essentially undeniable contents can support dismissal when they conclusively refute the plaintiff's allegations.

Valentina v. Beckerman · filed 2025-08-13(a)(1)

"For the purpose of CPLR 3211(a)(1), judicial records . . . , the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence" ( Oparaji v ABN Amro Mtge. Group, Inc. , 202 AD3d 985, 987 [internal quotation marks omitted]). ... Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the court proceeding in the underlying action containing the plaintiff's allocution conducted by the court regarding the settlement agreement, which conclusively established that the plaintiff was not effectively compelled to settle the underlying action ( see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP , 116 AD3d 756, 757-758).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a movant must show that an audio recording qualifies as documentary evidence before relying on it to dismiss a claim.

Fabi v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. · filed 2025-08-13(a)(1)

Likewise, the defendants each failed to show that an audio recording they submitted in support of their separate motions constitutes documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Jesberger v CVS Health Solutions, LLC , 222 AD3d 849, 850).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

729 Third Ave Rest. LLC v. DOLP 733 Prop. II LLC · filed 2025-08-13(a)(1)

Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) "dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." ... Accordingly, the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claims, as Gallin has not met their prima facie burden based on the documentary evidence provided.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence conclusively refutes the plaintiff’s allegations or establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Pei v. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. · filed 2025-08-18(a)(1)

Applying the law to the facts at hand, the documentary evidence does not conclusively show that defendant did not waive forfeiture for nonpayment of premiums, nor does it show that it should not be estopped from denying plaintiff the death benefits.

Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), leases can support dismissal when they utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations and conclusively establish a defense.

Savgir v. City of New York · filed 2025-08-19(a)(1)

As in Jackson v. YAM Holding Corp., supra, the leases “utterly refute” the allegations of ownership, operation, control, or maintenance by SSM and conclusively establish a complete defense.

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence that conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Dechert LLP v. Fay · filed 2025-08-20(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) can succeed only if the movant provides documentary evidence that “utterly refutes [the opponent's] factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.” (Goshen v Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002] [internal citation omitted].)

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence supports dismissal when it utterly refutes the complaint's factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

M & R Real Estate, LLC v. Islip Apt. Corp. · filed 2025-08-27(a)(1)

"A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that a defense is founded on documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Bonavita v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 185 AD3d 892, 893). ... The express language of the lease agreement conclusively disposed of the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification ( see Vasquez v Kennedy , 221 AD3d at 938; Cassese v SVJ Joralemon, LLC , 168 AD3d 667, 669).

Affidavits do not constitute documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Curran v. Village of Amityville · filed 2025-08-27(a)(1)

Here, since the affidavits that the Village submitted in support of its motion did not constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1), the Supreme Court properly determined that the Village was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to that statutory provision ( see Varricchio v Big Bros. Big Sisters of Am., Inc. , 220 AD3d at 906; Davis v Henry , 212 AD3d 597, 598).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively defeats a claim as a matter of law.

Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. v. Darien Sport Shop, Inc. · filed 2025-09-17(a)(1)

Therefore, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant conclusively disposed of the plaintiff's cause of action alleging breach of contract ( see Hanover Ins. Co. v Catlin Specialty Ins. Co. , 218 AD3d at 755; Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc., v Brooklyn Union Gas Co. , 215 AD3d at 909).

A city charter referenced in the parties' agreements can constitute documentary evidence under Section 3211(a)(1).

306 Wall St. Owners, LLC v. City of Kingston · filed 2025-09-25(a)(1)

As referenced in the agreements, a copy of the 1896 Kingston Charter is contained in the record and constitutes documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) ( see Salus v Berke , 221 AD3d 1390, 1392 [3d Dept 2023]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Macias v. Macias · filed 2025-10-13(a)(1)

Under CPLR § 3211 (a)(1), dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law (id.). ... Accordingly, the court denies Respondent's motion as it seeks dismissal pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (1).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion, a court may consider a draft agreement attached to an attorney's affirmation when the opposing party does not object to it and relies on it in opposition.

Uno A Brokerage Inc. v. Inshur, Inc. · filed 2025-10-14(a)(1)

Plaintiff contends that the court should not have relied on the parties' draft agreement because it was inadmissible. This argument is unavailing. While "defendant's attorney, in h[is] affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the" draft agreement ( AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 237 AD3d 596, 596 [1st Dept 2005]), "plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of . . . the document[] annexed to the attorney's affirmation and relied on the same document[] in opposition to defendant's motion" ( id. [internal citation omitted]).

Visa application documents can qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) when properly authenticated and bearing sufficient indicia of the opposing party's role in preparing them.

Best Work Holdings (N.Y.) LLC v. Jia Ivy Ma. · filed 2025-10-14(a)(1)

These documents, which were submitted with defendant's L-1A visa application and renewals, were properly authenticated by plaintiff's employee, contained sufficient indicia of defendant's role in preparing them, and qualified as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see e.g. Kolchins v Evolution Mkts., Inc. , 128 AD3d 47, 58 [1st Dept 2015], affd 31 NY3d 100 [2018]).

Affidavits do not qualify as documentary evidence for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Archer v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (MTA) · filed 2025-10-21(a)(1)

These individuals' affidavits constitute extrinsic evidence that does not qualify as "documentary evidence" within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when it utterly refutes the plaintiff’s allegations or conclusively establishes a defense.

Valinoti v. Greenman · filed 2025-10-29(a)(1)

Here, the deeds submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not utterly refute or conclusively establish a defense to the plaintiff's claims ( see Simmons v Reich , 171 AD3d 1237, 1238; Bouffard v Befese, LLC , 111 AD3d 866, 868).

An affidavit cannot serve as the documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Neptune Issue Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Eliopoulos · filed 2025-10-30(a)(1)

Such information is also presented through the affidavit of the managing member of GEL, Eliopoulos' son, which cannot serve as the factual predicate for a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence ( see Crepin v Fogarty , 59 AD3d 837, 838 [3d Dept [*5]2009]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Ortiz v. Kliszus · filed 2025-11-06(a)(1)

Alternatively, as set forth below, the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a deed can serve as documentary evidence when it conclusively establishes a fact that defeats a claim.

Lee v. Mom's Apt. Rentals LLC · filed 2025-11-07(a)(1)

A deed is the type of proof that could be used in a motion under CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and in this case, it conclusively establishes that Ms~ Toth was not the owner of the property on the date of accident, having transferred it about 6 ½ months earlier.

A DOB complaint that neither conclusively negates the pleaded allegations nor is shown to qualify as documentary evidence does not support dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Arporan v. Delshah Mgt. LLC · filed 2025-12-09(a)(1)

While Defendants submit as an exhibit a New York City Department of Buildings ("DOB") complaint alleging the Premises was being used illegally as an Airbnb, this exhibit does not conclusively negate Plaintiff's allegations and does not state whether the DOB found evidence that the apartment was being used as an Airbnb. Moreover, Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) which governs motions to dismiss based on documentary evidence, and Defendants have not shown the DOB complaint constitutes documentary evidence.

Copies of emails allegedly sent to a FOIL requester do not constitute documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Matter of DeStefano v. Dutchess County Sheriff's Off. · filed 2025-12-24(a)(1)

Copies of emails allegedly sent to the petitioner, which the respondents relied upon to demonstrate that the Sheriff's Office timely responded to the petitioner's FOIL request, did not constitute documentary evidence ( see Goldin Real Estate, LLC v Shukla , 227 AD3d 674, 676-677).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Etimos v. Casa Bella Prop. Mgt., LLC · filed 2025-12-24(a)(1)

"Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if 'the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law'" ( Russo v Crisona , 219 AD3d 920, 922, quoting Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326). ... This showing utterly refuted the plaintiff's factual allegations that the defendants owned the real property abutting the sidewalk, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law ( see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d at 326).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), electronic communications, including WhatsApp messages, may be documentary evidence when they conclusively establish a defense.

JAK Advisors, LLC v. Bauer · filed 2026-01-08(a)(1)

Documentary evidence may include electronic communications such as emails, text messages, and, as here, WhatsApp messages, where they conclusively establish the asserted defense ( see 4720 Third Ave. Hous. LLC v CA Ventures LLC , 211 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2022]; Langer v Dadabhoy , 44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]; see also Popescu v Austin , 2022 NY Slip Op 31275[U], *3 [Sup Ct, New York County 2022]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits a court to consider planning board meeting minutes that record the board's actions as documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss.

Florance v. Town of Dickinson · filed 2026-01-08(a)(1)

The Court concludes that the meeting minutes of the Planning Board, which provide a written account of the Planning Board's actions, qualify as documentary evidence that could be considered on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 321 l(a)(l).

A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence fails when the submitted documents do not utterly refute the complaint’s allegations.

Korpenn LLC v. One Penn Plaza LLC · filed 2026-01-15(a)(1)

None of the documents submitted by defendant utterly refutes the allegations in the complaint that the sublease, as defined in section 28.01(i) of the ground lease, was extinguished upon defendant's execution of the 1999 surrender of subleases.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence must utterly refute the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law.

Chin v. Pacific 10, LLC · filed 2026-01-28(a)(1)

Furthermore, Bahram failed to submit documentary evidence utterly refuting the plaintiffs' factual allegations and conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law ( see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Bahram's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Judicial admissions in another complaint can constitute documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Lending Assets, LLC v. Gerbi · filed 2026-02-03(a)(1)

Furthermore, these judicial admissions constitute admissible documentary evidence for purposes of defendants' motion to dismiss ( see New Greenwich Litig. Trustee, LLC v Citco Fund Servs. [Europe] B.V. , 145 AD3d 16, 25 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when it utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Sal Savasta, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc. · filed 2026-02-18(a)(1)

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [the] factual allegations [in the complaint], conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d at 88).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal only if it utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

S. Garson, LLC v. Luck · filed 2026-02-18(a)(1)

"A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Katsorhis v 718 W. Beech St, LLC , 234 AD3d 744, 746). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits a court to consider contract terms, including merger clauses, as documentary evidence on a motion to dismiss.

Quinn v. QVC Group, Inc. · filed 2026-02-24(a)(1)

Contracts and their terms, including merger clauses such as that in the APA, are the kind of documentary evidence properly considered on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(1), and such a merger clause can warrant granting a motion dismissing claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and/or fraud where the plaintiff’s allegations are clearly precluded by the merger clause and/or barred by the parol evidence rule (see Denenberg v Schaeffer, 137 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2d Dept 2016]; SNS Bank, N.V. v Citibank, N.A., 7 AD.3d 352, 354 [1st Dept 2004]).

The email correspondence submitted in this case did not qualify as documentary evidence under § 3211(a)(1).

Neel v. New York Univ. · filed 2026-02-26(a)(1)

Defendants' attachment of the email correspondences between Ackman and Abramson (NYSCEF doc. no. 48, Exhibit K) does not meet the criterion of "documentary evidence" for purposes of its argument under CPLR 3211 (a) (I).

An unambiguous, expired contract can qualify as documentary evidence supporting dismissal under § 3211(a)(1).

Impark HSW LLC v. RFR Realty LLC · filed 2026-02-26(a)(1)

An unambiguous, expired contract which qualifies as documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (1) -- insulates defendants from liability on a breach of contract cause of action, because "the criterion is whether the [plaintiff] has a cause of action, not whether [plaintiff has] stated one" (Guggenheimer, 43 NY2d at 275 [1977]).

A plaintiff who incorporates emails into the complaint by NYSCEF document number cannot defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion by arguing that those emails are not documentary evidence.

Sathyanarayanan v. Moberg · filed 2026-02-27(a)(1)

Because plaintiffs themselves incorporated the emails into the complaint by NYSCEF document number, their argument that the emails do not constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is not persuasive.

CPLR 3211(a)(1) does not support dismissal when the documentary evidence is ambiguous about the obligation at issue.

Minchala v. San Remo Tenants' Corp. · filed 2026-02-27(a)(1)

Although AI status and the obligation to indemnify are legally distinct, the ambiguities render the document insufficient to support a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion to dismiss.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Sudberg v. Zhu · filed 2026-03-02(a)(1)

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law (id. at 88). ... Here, the judicial records from Plaintiff's federal criminal case (NYSCEF Docs. 8-13) constitute irrefutable documentary evidence that conclusively establishes Plaintiff's willful and voluntary participation in the criminal enterprise from which he now seeks to recover funds.

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence conclusively refutes the complaint's factual allegations.

LK Jane Doe 1 v. Mount Sinai Beth Israel · filed 2026-03-02(a)(1)

Taking the facts alleged in the Complaint as true, as is required on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, the Certificate of Incorporation alone does not "utterly refute plaintiffs factual allegations" that a de facto merger between defendant entities took place.

Section 3211(a)(1) does not permit dismissal of a contract claim when documentary evidence fails to conclusively refute the alleged agreement.

A.S. v. S.J. · filed 2026-03-02(a)(1)

Documentary submissions do not "utterly refute" the existence of the agreement within the meaning of CPLR § 3211 (a)(l).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a selected sample of contracts does not support dismissal unless it utterly refutes the allegations.

Voytas v. 976 Madison Rest. LLC · filed 2026-03-03(a)(1)

For purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Defendant cannot rely on a self-selected sample of event contracts to "utterly refute" Plaintiffs allegations (see, e.g. Maor v Glorious Food Inc., 129 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2015] [invoices submitted by defendant on motion to dismiss did not conclusively dispose of alleged § 196-d violation]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense.

Matter of Flatley v. Town of Southold · filed 2026-03-11(a)(1)

"A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Johnson v 275 Clermont, LLC , 235 AD3d 731, 732).

The affidavits, deposition testimony, and emails submitted in this case did not qualify as documentary evidence under § 3211(a)(1).

Leon v. Singh · filed 2026-03-11(a)(1)

However, the affidavits, deposition testimony, and emails submitted did not constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Garcia v Shah , 206 AD3d at 629).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence does not warrant dismissal when an ambiguous agreement permits a reasonable reading of the complaint and the evidence does not conclusively refute its allegations.

Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP v. Robins Kaplan LLP · filed 2026-03-12(a)(1)

Supreme Court should not have granted defendant's motion to dismiss, as each party offered a reasonable construction of the parties' fee-sharing agreement and the documentary evidence therefore did not "conclusively refute" the allegations in the complaint ( see CPLR 3211[a][1]; Goshen v Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York , 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002] ; Eaglehill Genpar LLC v FPCG, LLC , 188 AD3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2020]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Premier Enter. Co., Inc. v. Liffey Van Lines, Inc. · filed 2026-03-12(a)(1)

Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law (Id.; citing Heaney v Piirdy, 29 NY2d 157 [1971]).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the submitted material qualifies as documentary evidence.

Glory R Constr. Inc. v. 651923 18 Ave LLC · filed 2026-03-13(a)(1)

Moving Defendants are not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) because the nature of the evidence submitted did not constitute documentary evidence as contemplated by such CPLR provisions ( see Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC , 233 AD3d at 857).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only when documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

1200 AOA Realty, LLC v. 1200 AOA Realty Assoc., LLC · filed 2026-03-16(a)(1)

Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) "dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). ... Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claims against the Fund XI entities, because Defendants have failed to demonstrate that 1200 AOA Realty Associates, LLC is the only relevant Defendant to this contract as a matter of law.

Section 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence to utterly refute the allegations; the selected text messages in this case did not meet that standard.

T.H. v. City of New York · filed 2026-03-18(a)(1)

However, CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal only where the documentary evidence submitted is "unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" and utterly refutes the factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law ( see Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). ... Plaintiff's selection of certain text messages does not come close to utterly refuting any of the counterclaims.

A foreclosure and sale agreement can serve as documentary evidence that refutes a claim that the sale was a sham, even when some contract assignments require third-party approval.

Westpoint Home, LLC v. Dormify, Inc. · filed 2026-03-19(a)(1)

Nonetheless, the FSA itself constitutes documentary evidence sufficient to refute plaintiff's contention because under the FSA all of the assets of defendant OCM, including its contracts were assigned, even if the assignment of many of those contracts were subject to third-party approval ( see Underwood v Urban Homesteading Assistance (U-HAB), Inc. , 191 AD3d 550, 552 [1st Dept 2021]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Gray v. Diamond Prop. Mgt. · filed 2026-03-20(a)(1)

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) based upon documentary evidence "may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [the] plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( 572 Walt Whitman Rd. Holdings, LLC v Whitman Capital, LLC , 237 AD3d 878 [2d Dept 2025] [internal citation and quotation omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Metropolitan Partners Group Admin., LLC v. Nerney · filed 2026-04-16(a)(1)

Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence (see CPLR 3211[a][1]). ... Thus, the documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law (see Rosario v Hallen Constr. Co., Inc., 214 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2023]).

CPLR 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively refutes a claim.

ABJ 105 LLC v. Martinez · filed 2026-04-16(a)(1)

Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint, as the documentary evidence conclusively refutes the cause of action for fraudulent inducement (see CPLR 3211[a][1]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when that evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Stumacher v. Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2026-04-30(a)(1)

Further, the documentary evidence submitted by defendants does not conclusively establish a defense to the legal malpractice cause of action as a matter of law (see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267, 271 [1st Dept 2004]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable; an unauthenticated, not fully executed sublease cannot support dismissal.

Hampton v. Maujer, LLC · filed 2026-05-01(a)(1)

Under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), "for evidence to qualify as 'documentary,' it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" ... Here, it was improper to rely upon the unauthenticated and not fully executed sublease.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence supports dismissal only when it utterly refutes the allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

MMG Invs. III, LLC v. Elite Decor, Inc. · filed 2026-05-13(a)(1)

"A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Qureshi v Vital Transp., Inc., 173 AD3d 1076, 1077; see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88).

Section 3211(a)(1) does not warrant dismissal when the submitted documents fail to refute the complaint's allegations.

Fifth Ave. Surgery Ctr. LLC v. JJS Group Inc. · filed 2026-05-14(a)(1)

Accordingly, none of the documents refute the allegations in the complaint for the purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Factual affidavits are not documentary evidence supporting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Ward v. Northeast Truck Rental & Leasing LLC · filed 2026-05-19(a)(1)

Northeast was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint as against it under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) because it attached to its motion only factual affidavits, which did "not constitute documentary evidence for purposes of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)" (Bou v Llamoza, 173 AD3d 575, 575 [1st Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal of a counterclaim only when it conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

GPB Capital Holdings, LLC v. Dibre · filed 2026-05-20(a)(1)

Thus, the documentary evidence utterly refuted the defendant's factual allegations and conclusively established a defense as a matter of law to the second counterclaim.

An affirmation is not documentary evidence that can support dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Blumenfeld v. Smith · filed 2026-05-21(a)(1)

Although defendants attempted to explain the se transactions through the affirmation of defendant Jeffrey Smith, who is a managing member of nearly all of the nominal defendants, "an affirmation is not documentary evidence" and cannot provide the grounds upon which to grant a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( Mamoon v Dot Net Inc., 135 AD3d 656, 657 [1st Dept 2016]).

Section 3211(a)(1) permits dismissal based on documentary evidence only when the evidence utterly refutes the complaint’s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Yellowstone Capital W., LLC · filed 2026-05-27(a)(1)

Here, to the extent the evidence submitted by the VCF defendants was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish a defense to the claims as a matter of law or utterly refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations (see Ofman v Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers, LLP, 217 AD3d 960, 962). Accordingly, the VCF defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations to support dismissal.

Fehringer v. MLJ Contr. Corp. · filed 2026-06-17(a)(1)

With respect to the remaining documents, the agreement and payroll records failed to utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations ( see Huli Ma v Hui Chen , 221 AD3d at 872; Gorunkati v Baker Sanders, LLC , 179 AD3d at 906). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), documentary evidence warrants dismissal only if it conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law.

Zurakov v. Register.Com, Inc. · filed 2003-04-22(a)(1)

Thus, the record is inconclusive as to whether a reasonable consumer would bother to look in the Web site at all, especially since the contract purports to be fully integrated (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994] [“Under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law”]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a prior order stating that a defendant returned a payment does not defeat a diversion claim when the complaint alleges receipt of trust funds without specifying an amount.

EAST2WEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC v. THE FIRST REPUBLIC CORPORATION OF A · filed 2014-03-21(a)(1)

We agree with plaintiffs that a prior order of the court stating that GSF had returned a payment from FRCA does not defeat the allegation in the complaint that GSF received trust funds diverted by FRCA, inasmuch as the allegation did not specify a precise amount (cf. generally CPLR 3211 [a] [1]).

CPLR 3211 permits dismissal when documentary evidence conclusively establishes that a pleaded claim cannot succeed.

Eberhardt v. G&J Contr., Inc. · filed 2020-11-13(a)(1)

Contrary to plaintiff's contention on his appeal, the court properly granted defendant's motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the Labor Law causes of action because defendant submitted documentary evidence "conclusively establish[ing]" ( Liberty Affordable Hous., Inc. v Maple Ct. Apts. , 125 AD3d 85, 92 [4th Dept 2015]) that, "as a subcontractor, it did not have the authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiff's injury and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200 . . . or 241 (6)" ( Foots v Consolidated Bldg. Contrs., Inc. , 119 AD3d 1324, 1327 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a fraud claim survives a motion to dismiss when the complaint sufficiently alleges duties independent of the defendants’ contractual duties.

Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v. Program Risk Management, Inc. · filed 2017-01-05(a)(7)

Further, for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the fraud causes of action sufficiently alleged duties to plaintiffs independent from the alleged failure of the PRM defendants to perform the terms of their contracts with the trust.

A fraud claim survives a CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) motion when the complaint adequately alleges knowing misrepresentation and detrimental reliance.

Fidelity National Title Insurance v. NY Land Title Agency LLC · filed 2014-10-02(a)(1), (a)(7)

On this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), the complaint presents not only a rational basis, but a compelling one “for inferring that the alleged misrepresentations” ... “w[ere] knowingly made” (Oster v Kirschner, 77 AD3d 51, 57 [1st Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a claim and requires the court to accept pleaded facts as true while determining whether they fit a cognizable legal theory.

Matter of White v. Annucci · filed 2018-05-17(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a claim, the facts as alleged by petitioner in the pleading are accepted as true, and the court must "determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( McFadden v Amodio , 149 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires a court reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim to accept the complaint's allegations as true, give the plaintiff every favorable inference, and determine whether the alleged facts fit any cognizable legal theory.

Szydlowski v. Town of Bethlehem · filed 2018-06-07(a)(7)

"[O]n a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept as true the allegations contained therein, accord the plaintiff[s] the benefit of every favorable inference and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Skibinsky v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 6 AD3d 975, 976 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Graven v Children's Home R.T.F., Inc. , 152 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2017]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a claim even when the answer did not plead that defense.

Gourary v. Laster · filed 2018-06-12(a)(7)

Defendants could seek dismissal under section 3211(a)(7) even though their answer did not allege as a defense the failure to state a claim ( Riland v Todman & Co. , 56 AD2d 350, 351 [1st Dept 1977]), and their reliance upon this Court's prior decision as law of the case did not transform their motion into one for summary judgment.

CPLR 3211 permits dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim or failure to join a necessary party.

NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Siemon · filed 2018-10-18(a)(7) and (a)(10)

Defendant's motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7) was properly denied, as plaintiffs stated a claim under Title 11, Chapter 3 of the New York City Administrative Code. ... Defendant also fails to show why the complaint should have been dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(10). Plaintiffs named and served Emigrant as successor to original defendant Dollar Savings Bank, and Jeanette Siemon, in accordance with the parties' so-ordered stipulation dated February 23, 2015.

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to state a claim without a determination on the merits.

Herrmann v. Bank of Am., N.A. · filed 2019-03-28(a)(7)

However, because this dismissal is based upon plaintiff's failure to state a claim ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) rather than a determination on the merits, Supreme Court's dismissal should have been without prejudice ( see generally Matter of Congdon v Congdon , 200 AD2d 836, 837 [1994]; Factory Point Natl. Bank v Wooden Indian , 198 AD2d 563, 564 [1993]; compare Stiles v Graves , 143 AD3d 1215, 1216-1217 [2016]).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to accept pleaded facts as true and give the plaintiff every favorable inference when deciding whether the complaint states a claim.

Walden Bailey Chiropractic, P.C. v. Geico Cas. Co. · filed 2019-06-28(a)(7)

Accepting as true the facts alleged in the amended complaint, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Hall v McDonald's Corp. , 159 AD3d 1591, 1592 [4th Dept 2018]), we reject defendant's contention that the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the first cause of action for failure to state a claim.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires courts to construe pleadings liberally, accept allegations as true, and give plaintiffs every favorable inference when deciding whether a claim states a cause of action.

Center for Rheumatology, LLP v. Shapiro · filed 2019-09-19(a)(7)

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "the Court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take the allegations of the complaint as true and provide [the] plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference" ( EBC 1, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11 , 19 [2005]).

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

Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v. Honka · filed 2020-02-20(a)(7)

When assessing a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court determines 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 for failure to state a claim, pleadings are construed liberally, alleged facts are accepted as true, and the court asks whether those facts state a claim.

Kovkov v. Law Firm of Dayrel Sewell, PLLC · filed 2020-04-02(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleadings are afforded a liberal construction and the only issue is whether the facts alleged, accepted as true, state a claim ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of counterclaims for failure to state a claim; dismissal is unwarranted when the counterclaims allege sufficient facts and the required elements.

National Recruiting Group, LLC v. Bern Ripka LLP · filed 2020-05-20(a)(7)

For these same reasons, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the counterclaims.

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

Matter of Renren Inc. Derivative Litig. v. XXX · filed 2020-05-20(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7), the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction and accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference ( Morone v Morone , 50 NY2d 481, 484 [1980]).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), courts must construe the pleadings liberally, accept the allegations as true, and give plaintiffs every possible favorable inference.

Charles Schwab Corp. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. · filed 2020-08-13(a)(7)

As this is a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), Supreme Court should have afforded the pleadings a liberal construction ( see CPLR 3026), taken the allegations of the complaint as true, and afforded plaintiff[s] the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

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

People v. Bruen · filed 2020-10-08(a)(7)

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a claim, we must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, confer on the nonmoving party the benefit of every possible inference and determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( McFadden v Amodio , 149 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Duffy v Baldwin , 183 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2020]; Szydlowski v Town of Bethlehem , 162 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2018]).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts the material allegations as true and gives the plaintiff every reasonable inference.

C.H.A. Design Export (H.K.) Ltd. v. Miller · filed 2021-02-09(a)(7)

Here, defendant has moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a claim, where the standard requires us to "[accept] the material allegations as true and [give] plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference" ( Kralic v Hemsley , 294 AD2d 234, 235 [1st Dept 2002]).

On a motion to dismiss a counterclaim under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the alleged facts and opposition submissions as true, gives the pleading party every favorable inference, and asks whether the facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

KST2 Props., LLC v. Pretee Constr. Co., Inc. · filed 2021-03-10(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court "must accept [the] facts as alleged . . . and submissions in opposition [as true], accord [the pleading party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs. Inc. , 20 NY3d 59, 63 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept its allegations as true, draw favorable inferences, and determine whether the alleged facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v. FirstService Residential N.Y., Inc. · filed 2021-04-07(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss a complaint 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).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a complaint may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim even when construed liberally, with all submissions considered and every favorable inference afforded.

Sifonte v. City of New York · filed 2021-05-04(a)(7)

Even construing the complaint, as amplified by all submissions on the dismissal motion, liberally and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference ( see Smith v City of New York , 170 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2019]), plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the City for Monell liability ( see Monell v Department of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. , 436 US 658, 693-695 [1978]; De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 768 [2016]).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court reads 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.

J. D. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn · filed 2022-03-16(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 under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as true, construes the complaint liberally, and gives the plaintiff every favorable inference.

Fon v. Krowe · filed 2022-04-20(a)(7)

"'On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and liberally construe the complaint, according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference'" ( Tsatskin v Kordonsky , 189 AD3d 1296, 1297, quoting Dee v Rakower , 112 AD3d 204, 208).

A complaint survives a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) when its allegations, read favorably, state a viable claim.

Hilgreen v. Pollard Excavating, Inc. · filed 2022-11-23(a)(7)

Applying that standard here — and noting that the third amended third-party complaint includes significant additional factual allegations aimed at remedying the deficiencies we identified in its predecessor — we are satisfied that the third amended third-party complaint states claims against Central Mutual, and therefore affirm.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal of allegations that fail to state a claim.

Kuang v. Jie Wen Zhou · filed 2023-01-31(a)(7)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret Chan, J.), entered April 11, 2022, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs. ... The court also correctly determined that plaintiff's remaining allegations fail to state a claim ( see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]).

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

Cabral v. Rockefeller Univ. · filed 2023-05-18(a)(7)

Thus, the facts as alleged in the complaint are to be accepted as true, and plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every reasonable inference, with the court's function being to 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 under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court treats the complaint’s allegations as true and resolves reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat · filed 2023-06-21(a)(7)

As noted above, on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), all allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true ( Sokoloff at 414; Cron at 366). All reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the complaint and the allegations therein stated shall be resolved in favor of the plaintiff ( Cron at 366).

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

Kiehl v. Cavicchio · filed 2023-07-12(a)(7)

Under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), for failure to state a claim, "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 [2013] [ JP Morgan ] [quoting AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 NY3d 582 , 591 (2005)]).

On a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and gives the plaintiff every favorable inference.

Custom Truck One Source, LP v. Clearway Indus., LLC · filed 2024-01-25(a)(7)

On a pre-answer motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), all of the factual allegations are accepted as true and the Plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference.

On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true, gives the pleading party every favorable inference, and asks whether those facts fit a cognizable legal theory.

Island Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Amerimex, Inc. · filed 2024-02-21(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, afford the proponent 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; Baron v Galasso , 83 AD3d 626, 627; Sokol v Leader , 74 AD3d 1180, 1181).

On a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), courts liberally construe the pleading, accept alleged facts as true, give the nonmoving party every favorable inference, and ask whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Taxi Tours v. Go New York Tours , Go New York Tours v. Big Bus Tours Limited · filed 2024-03-14(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the Court affords the pleading “a liberal construction” and must “accept the facts as alleged [ ] 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]); see also 34-06 73, LLC v Seneca Ins. Co., 39 NY3d 44, 51 [2022]).

Section 3211(a)(7) tests whether pleaded facts fit a cognizable legal theory, while section 3211(a)(8) requires a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.

Fora Fin. Warehouse, LLC v. PMGL LLC · filed 2024-06-05(a)(7), (a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the facts alleged in the complaint are 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 [1994]; Grant v LaTrace , 119 AD3d 646 [2d Dept 2014]). ... To defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss a complaint, "the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court" ( Jacobs v 201 Stephenson Corp., 138 AD3d 693, 694 [2d Dept 2016] quoting Whitcraft v Runyon , 123 AD3d 811, 812 [2d Dept 2014]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires the court to read the complaint liberally and determine whether the alleged facts state a cause of action.

South32 Chile Copper Holdings Pty Ltd v. Sumitomo Metal Min. Co., Ltd. · filed 2024-06-27(a)(7)

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard of review is as stated above — to give the complaint a liberal reading and determine only whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action, not to determine the validity of that cause of action.

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court accepts the alleged facts as true, gives the nonmovant favorable inferences, and asks whether the allegations fit a cognizable legal theory.

Aareal Capital Corp. v. 462BDWY Land, L.P. · filed 2024-09-27(a)(7)

When considering such a motion, the court "must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord [the non ·movant] the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'' ( Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arb. Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 NY3d 59, 63 [2012] [internal quotation omitted]; accord Pavich v Pavich, 189 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2020]).

Section 3211(a)(7) requires dismissal for failure to state a claim only when the pleading's factual allegations, taken together, do not state a legally cognizable cause of action.

AG1 Doe v. Morris · filed 2024-09-27(a)(7)

In a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a )(7), a court determines "whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (African Diaspora Maritime Corp. v Golden Gate Yacht Club, 109 AD3d 204,211 [1st Dept 2013]; Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp., 104 AD3d 401, 402-03 [1st Dept 2013]).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court asks whether the pleadings allege a claim for relief.

Hereford Ins. Co. v. 21 Century Chiropractic Care · filed 2024-09-30(a)(7)

Moving Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs failure to subscribe cause of action under CPLR 321 l(a)(7). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court merely ascertains whether a claim has been alleged based on the pleadings.