Friedman v. Friedman — 141 A.D.2d 401

Majority

p. 401

Frances S. Friedman, Appellant, v Howard J. Friedman et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1987, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must liberally construe the pleadings most favorably to the plaintiff (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559 , 562), and examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether one has been properly stated. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633 , 636.)

Applying these standards to the within complaint, we are satisfied that a cause of action for fraud is sufficiently stated.

p. 402

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cases cited

Cohn v. Lionel Corp. 21 NY2d 559 N.Y. 1968-04-04 at 562 p. 401
Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co. 40 NY2d 633 N.Y. 1976-10-26 at 636 p. 401