Riback v. Margulis
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Citation | Riback v. Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 842 N.Y.S.2d 54, 2007 NY Slip Op 6852 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-10573. |
| Parties | ESTHER ARONSON RIBACK et al., Appellants, v. NAIM MARGULIS, Respondent. |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although in assessing a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are accorded every favorable inference, bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration (see Morone v Morone, 50 NY2d 481 [1980]; Gershon v Goldberg, 30 AD3d 372, 373 [2006]; Mohan v Hollander, 303 AD2d 473 [2003]). The Surrogate's Court properly determined that the speculative and conclusory allegations of the complaint failed to state a cause of action pursuant to Debtor and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
27 cases
-
Bua v. Purcell & Ingrao, P.C.
...the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative ( see Hashmi v. Messiha, 65 A.D.3d 1193, 1195, 886 N.Y.S.2d 712;Riback v. Margulis, 43 A.D.3d 1023, 1023, 842 N.Y.S.2d 54). Here, the damages alleged in the amended complaint consist of expenses incurred in connection with the action for s......
-
Janker v. Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C.
...Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d at 177, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484; Hashmi v. Messiha, 65 A.D.3d 1193, 1195, 886 N.Y.S.2d 712; Riback v. Margulis, 43 A.D.3d 1023, 1023, 842 N.Y.S.2d 54). Here, to the extent that the complaint asserted that the appellants were negligent in failing to ascertain the full ......
-
Katsoris v. Bodnar & Milone, LLP
...v. Liotti , 86 A.D.3d at 177, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484 ; Hashmi v. Messiha , 65 A.D.3d 1193, 1195, 886 N.Y.S.2d 712 ; Riback v. Margulis , 43 A.D.3d 1023, 1023, 842 N.Y.S.2d 54 ). Here, the complaint failed to adequately allege actual, ascertainable damages. The general allegations that, as a resul......
-
Nasca v. Sgro
...as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration” ( Riback v. Margulis, 43 A.D.3d 1023, 1023, 842 N.Y.S.2d 54;see Baron v. Galasso, 83 A.D.3d 626, 628, 921 N.Y.S.2d 100), nor are legal conclusions or factual claims which are inherently i......
Get Started for Free