Bokhour v. GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Bokhour v. GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
59 citation events (59 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Halsey v. Riggins, 89 Misc. 3d 1253(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 683 Standard for denying motion to dismiss under cplr 3211(a)(7)24 citing cases“failed to demonstrate that any fact alleged in the complaint was undisputably not a fact at all”2 citing courts quote it · 19 listed here
  • Halsey v. Riggins, 89 Misc. 3d 1253(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. 2026).unpublished
    Bokhur v. GTI Retail Holdings, Inc. , 94 AD3d 682, 683 (2d Dept. 2012); Sokol, supra 74 AD3d at 1181 ; You Chen v. Kupoint (USA) Corporation , 160 AD3d 787 (2d Dept. 2018).
  • Ramirez v. Grand Canyon Bistro Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 31047(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2026).unpublished
    Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2d Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and alterations omitted]). 17 [* 17] 17 of 23 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 04:18 P~ INDEX NO. 529402/2024 1 NYSCEF DOC.
  • Kisla v. Schafer's Port Jefferson, 237 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published 4 cites
    Although a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), an affidavit submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 321…
  • Yu Chen v. Kupoint (USA) Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 2498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
    While [*2]a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( see Phillips v Taco Bell Corp., 152 AD3d 806, 807 ), "affidavits submitted by a defend…
  • Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    While a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a *808 motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180, 1181 [2010]), “affidavits submitted by a defendant…
  • Hartnagel v. FTW Contracting, 147 A.D.3d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Here, Benshar’s affidavit is not documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and the affidavit did not conclusively establish that a fact alleged in the complaint was undisputedly not a fact at all (see Bokhour v GTI Retail Holding…
  • E & D Grp., LLC v. Vialet, 134 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    Furthermore, although the defendant’s evidentiary submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the defendant ever entered into the alleged contract of sale and whether any such contract is enforceable as alleged in the complaint, his…
  • Abdale v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1027 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015).published 2 cites
    “Indeed, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists r…
  • Nasca v. Sgro, 130 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    “Indeed, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists r…
  • J&E Indus. of Ossining, Inc. v. Peekskill Hous. Auth., 128 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    However, the evidentiary material submitted by the Housing Authority in support of its motion demonstrated that the alleged compliance with the notice provision of Public Housing Law § 157 (1) “was undisputedly not a fact at all” (Bokhour…
Show 9 more citing cases
  • Clarke v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 920 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012] [in…
  • Dolphin Holdings, Ltd. v. Gander & White Shipping, Inc., 122 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012] [in…
  • Hampshire Props. v. BTA Bldg. & Developing, Inc., 122 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    Moreover, the affidavit submitted by the appellant “failed to demonstrate that any fact alleged in the complaint was undisputably not a fact at all” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012]; see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg…
  • Constructamax, Inc. v. Weber, 109 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Since the allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to state causes of action for contractual and common-law indemnification, and since the evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant do not show that the allegations are und…
  • QK Healthcare, Inc. v. InSource, Inc., 108 A.D.3d 56 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Here, however, the evidentiary material that the defendants submitted in support of their motion failed to demonstrate that any fact alleged in the complaint was undisputedly not a fact at all (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275 ;…
  • Weill v. East Sunset Park Realty, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published 2 cites
    The evidentiary submissions of East Sunset and Flushing failed to demonstrate that the material fact as alleged by the plaintiffs with respect to the priority of their interest “was undisputedly not a fact at all” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Hol…
  • Cucco v. Chabau Café Corp., 99 A.D.3d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published 2 cites
    Moreover, the evidentiary material that the defendant Catherine Chavenet submitted in support of that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her and the defendant L…
  • Jannetti v. Whelan, 97 A.D.3d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published 2 cites
    However, the evidentiary material submitted by the defendants failed to establish that the allegation “was undisputedly not a fact at all” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 683 [2012]; see Makris v Darus-Salaam Masjid, N.Y…
  • Cnty. of Westchester v. Unity Mech. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 6879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
At page 682 Standard for motion to dismiss pleading cause of action6 citing cases“when a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to cplr 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action”the opinion's own words at *682, quoted by 1 later opinions · 5 listed here
  • Kisla v. Schafer's Port Jefferson, 237 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published 4 cites
    Although a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), an affidavit submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 321…
  • AA Med., P.C. v. Miller, 2024 NY Slip Op 50795(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2024).unpublished
    In an order dated November 3, 2022, the County Court (James F. Matthews, J.) granted defendants' motion in its entirety, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, on the ground that "no valid cause of action exists against defendant[s] as the B…
  • Rock-Park 94 LLC v. Camba, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 30614(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublished
    “When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action” (Bokhour v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., 94 AD3d 682, 682 [2d Dept 2012]).
  • Thaw v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 129 A.D.3d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one . . . [The motion] must be denied unless it has been shown that a material f…
  • Faith Assembly v. Titledge of New York Abstract, LLC, 106 A.D.3d 47 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 6 cites
    Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38 [2006]). “ ‘When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the…
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elyas Bokhour
v.
GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., and Theodore Ketsoglou
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 3, 2012.
Published opinion
94 A.D.3d 682
Cited by 276 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants Theodore Ketsoglou and Andrew Seabury appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.), entered November 7, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180, 1180-1181 [2010]; see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). “In considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1181 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). “ ‘Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus’ ” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1181, quoting EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). However, “[a] court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a[*683] motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1181; see CPLR 3211 [c]). “If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes ‘whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one’ ” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1181-1182, quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275). “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1182 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lawrence v Graubard Miller, 11 NY3d 588, 595 [2008]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636 [1976]). “Indeed, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) must be denied ‘unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it’ ” (Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1182, quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275).

Here, the appellants, who submitted evidentiary material in support of their motion, failed to demonstrate that any fact alleged in the complaint was undisputedly not a fact at all (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275; Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d at 1182). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.