Legal Opinion
Blank v. Baronowski
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 11, 1997No. 96 Civil 3675 (SAS)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1 For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motions are denied.
I. Applicable Legal Standard
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept as true material facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. See Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir.1995). Such a motion cannot be granted simply because recovery appears remote or unlikely on the face…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- New York University v. Continental InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Beate Bernheim v. Jeffrey LittCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Action S.A. And Deltamar Establishment v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc. And Marc Rich, Marc RichCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Bridgestone/firestone, Inc. v. Recovery Credit Services, Inc., Revenue Recovery, Inc. And George BeladinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- EED HOLDINGS v. Palmer Johnson Acquisition Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- The Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani SAICDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & BuddDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & BuddDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- In Re Refco Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.