Legal Opinion
Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. E.W. Howell Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 3, 1997PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
On a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, the court should accept each of the factual allegations of the complaint as true, sustain the pleading when a cause of action may be discerned, even if in-artfully stated, and make no effort to evaluate the ultimate merits of the case (see, McGill v Parker, 179 AD2d 98, 105). A motion to dismiss a complaint can be granted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) only if the movant…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McGill v. ParkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Demas v. 325 West End Avenue Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Castagna & Son, Inc. v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- National States Electric Corp. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3Cited by14 opinions
- Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Ark Bryant Park Corp. v. Bryant Park Restoration Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Ansonia Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Ansonia Tenants' Coalition, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Sprewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2003
- DeMicco Bros. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.