Rios v. Tiny Giants Daycare, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sikorsky v. City of Newburgh, N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Barbaro v. Eger Health Care & Rehabilitation Ctr. (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County 2024)
- CHOROMANSKIS, DIANE v. CHESTNUT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, IN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Choromanskis v. Chestnut Homeowners Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Choromanskis v. Chestnut Homeowners Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- MCFADDEN, REGINALD v. SCHNEIDERMAN, ESQ., ERIC T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- McFadden v. Schneiderman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- McFadden v. Schneiderman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered July 15, 2015, which granted the defendant Jose Done’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether, from the four corners of the complaint, “factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Beechwood Org., 80 AD3d 643, 649 [2011]; Fishberger v Voss, 51 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]; McGuire v Sterling Doubleday Enters., L.P., 19 AD3d 660, 661-662 [2005]). Although the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the allegations in a complaint cannot be vague and conclusory (see Stoianoff v Gahona, 248 AD2d 525, 526 [1998]), and “[b]are legal conclusions” will not suffice (Baron v Galasso, 83 AD3d 626, 628 [2011]; see Riback v Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant Jose Done’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the conclusory allegations therein were insufficient to state a cause of action against him. Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.