Martin v. New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens
Decision Date | 21 November 2006 |
Docket Number | 2006-02870. |
Parties | ROBERTA MARTIN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF QUEENS, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a defense is founded upon documentary evidence (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). "`To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim'" (M. Fund, Inc. v Carter, 31 AD3d 620 [2006], quoting Trade Source v Westchester Wood Works, 290 AD2d 437, 438 [2002]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendant, namely the parties' agreement dated June 18, 2003, failed to resolve all factual issues as a matter of law and to conclusively dispose of the plaintiff's claim. This agreement did not establish that the plaintiff consented to the installation of the subject railing.
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). In reviewing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the facts as alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court's function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, supra at 87-88; Lupski v County of Nassau, 32 AD3d 997 [2006]; Richmond Shop Smart, Inc. v Kenbar Dev. Ctr., LLC, 32 AD3d 423 [2006]; Simmons v Edelstein, 32 AD3d 464 [2006]). In this regard, "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Leon v Martinez, supra at 88). "`To acquire an easement by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmieri v. Biggiani
...evidence ... must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law” ( Martin v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 34 A.D.3d 650, 650, 826 N.Y.S.2d 85 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the......
-
Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 32895(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007), 0004878/2007
... ... No: 2 ... Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County ... August 21, 2007 ... Motion ... 2007); Martin v. New York Hosp. Medical Center of Queens, 34 ... ...
-
Correa v. Ditrapani, 2007 NY Slip Op 32898(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007)
... ... Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County ... August 21, 2007 ... Motion ... New York ... Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1983); Zuckerman v. City of ... 2007); Martin v. New York Hosp. Medical Center of Queens, 34 ... ...
-
Michael Ullian & Ponquogue Manor Constr., LLC v. Michael Margarella, Atrium 680 LLC
...N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190]; Williams v. Williams, 36 A.D.3d 693 [828 N.Y.S.2d 189]; Martin v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 34 A.D.3d 650 [826 N.Y.S.2d 85] )" (Mendelovitz v. Cohen, 37 A.D.3d 670, 830 N.Y.S.2d 577). In the current action, the only cause of action alleged as agains......