Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls
| Decision Date | 22 May 1995 |
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 619,628 N.Y.S.2d 508 |
| Parties | Jennie M. BOVINO, etc., et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF WAPPINGERS FALLS, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Viglotti, Village Atty., Wappingers Falls (Richard Cantor, of counsel), for appellants.
Bernard Kessler, Hyde Park (Valentino T. Sammarco, of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, inter alia, Village of Wappingers Falls Local Law 5-1992 unconstitutional, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered June 24, 1993, as (1) denied those branches of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) which were to dismiss the second, fourth, and fifth causes of action asserted in the complaint, and (2) granted the plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to serve an amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that, as a general rule, on a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under 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, Gruen v. County of Suffolk, 187 A.D.2d 560, 562, 590 N.Y.S.2d 217). "[T]he sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law[,] a motion * * * will fail" (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17), regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits (see, Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 394, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231; Gruen v. County of Suffolk, supra ). Here, the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiffs' complaint were sufficient to state causes of action for violations of due process, equal protection, and civil rights (see, Gruen v. County of Suffolk, supra; Margolis v. New York City of Tr. Auth., 157 A.D.2d 238, 240-241, 555 N.Y.S.2d 711).
Moreover, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. "Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably improper as a matter of law or prejudices or surprises the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malul v. Azulay
...997, 822 N.Y.S.2d 112 [2d Dept.2006]; Rochdale Vil. v. Zimmerman, 2 A.D.3d 827, 769 N.Y.S.2d 386 [2d Dept.2003]; Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls, 215 A.D.2d 619 [1995] ). The facts pleaded are to be presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference, although bare le......
-
Gomez v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977];Rochdale Village, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 2 AD3d 827 [2nd Dept.2003]; see also, Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls, 215 A.D.2d 619 [2nd Dept.1995] ). When evidentiary material is considered, the criterion is whether or not the proponent of the pleading has ......
-
Tarascio v. DeCapite, 2009 NY Slip Op 30368(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/10/2009)
...together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (Guggenheimer v. Ginsburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275; see also, Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls, 215 A.D.2d 619). The facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference, although bare legal conclusio......
-
Diorio v. Graziano, 2009 NY Slip Op 30689(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/20/2009), 018680/08
...together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law" (Guggenheimer v. Ginsburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275; see also, Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls, 215 A.D.2d 619). The facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference, although bare legal conclusio......