Leon v. Martinez (1994)

Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 , 614 N.Y.S.2d 972 , 638 N.E.2d 511 (1994) (“No particular words are necessary to effect an assignment; it is only required that there be a perfected transaction between the assignor and assignee, intended by those parties to vest in the assignee a present right in the things assigned.”).

Co. of N.Y. , 98 NY2d 314, 326; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88).

When considering a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, "the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994], citing CPLR 3026).

We find that Supreme Court erred in denying defendant Long's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, as defendant established that plaintiff's allegations do not "fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court is required to accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading must be afforded a liberal construction and 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'" ( Ramirez v Donado Law Firm, P.C. , 169 AD3d 940, 941, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court must liberally construe the pleadings, accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint, and afford petitioners the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; Colt v Nathan Littauer Hosp. , 236 AD3d 1216, 1217 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 903 [2025]).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court is required to accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every [*2] favorable inference, and determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

Plaintiff's complaint, which is to be afforded a liberal construction and the facts of which we are required to accept as true ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), alleges egregious conduct directed not only at him but more broadly at MLMIC's other insureds within the State of New York and nationwide.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the Court must liberally construe the pleading, insofar as it must accept the facts as alleged in the Third-Party Complaint as true, accord Third-Party Plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged therein fit within any cognizable legal theory of liability ( see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, …

In deciding the motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged by the plaintiff 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 ( see IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of NY , NY3d , 2025 NY Slip Op 05870, *2 [2025]; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Documentary Evidence - Claims Against MSHS "On a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction and the plaintiffs allegations are accepted as true and accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference."' Granada Condominium III Ass'n v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996, 996 (2d Dept 2010), citing Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 ( 1994), Reiver v Burkhart Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD3d 1149 . 1150 (2d Dept 2010).CPLR…

Future Rights Lastly, the Original Lenders contend that the Reimbursement Rights were future rights at the time of the transfers that could not be assigned under applicable non-bankruptcy law. 18 This misstates the facts and the law. “[A]n assignment of a right to payment expected to arise out of an existing employment or other continuing business relationship is effective in the same way as an assignment of an existing right.” Restatement (Seoond) of Contracts § 321(1) (198…

Pertamina has not identified any Indonesian statute or regulation that grants the Republic of Indonesia ownership rights in the Retention. "[U]nder New York law, a defendant has an interest in ... funds if any part of the money is within the present or future control of the defendant." Gala Enterprises, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 970 F.Supp. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (citation and internal punctuation omitted); accord Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 , 88 n. 1, 638 N.E.2d 511 …

Pertamina has not identified any Indonesian statute or regulation that grants the Republic of Indonesia ownership rights in the Retention. “[U]nder New York law, a defendant has an interest in ... funds if any part of the money is within the present or future control of the defendant.” Gala Enterprises, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 970 F.Supp. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (citation and internal punctuation omitted); accord Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 , 88 n. 1, 638 N.E.2d 511 …

Accepting the facts as alleged in the counterclaim as true and affording respondents the benefit of every favorable inference ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. , 226 AD3d 60, 87-86 [2024]), we agree that respondents stated a cause of action for harassment (NY City Administrative Code [Administrative Code of NY] § 27-2004 [a] [48] [a-1] & [g]).

Co. , 39 NY3d 44, 51 [2022]), "accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). "[U]nlike on a motion for summary judgment where the court searches the record and assesses the sufficiency of the parties' evidence, on a motion to dismiss the court merely examines the adequacy of the pleadings" ( Cortlandt St.

Furthermore, the documentary evidence does not make clear whether Roy and Althkefati made the alleged representations in their personal capacities or in their capacities as members of judgment debtor, and at this stage of the litigation, where plaintiff is afforded every favorable inference, the fraudulent inducement claims should not have been dismissed on the basis that Roy and Althkefati were speaking as members of the LLC ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

The plaintiffs appeal. "'Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law'" ( Houtenbos v Fordune Assn., Inc. , 200 AD3d 662, 665, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88). "'[A] contractual forum selection clause is documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)'" ( Landmark Ventures, Inc. v Birger , 147 AD3d…

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court must "accept the facts as alleged in a 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 NY3d 137, 141).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

Legal Standard On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, afford plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) CPLR 3211(a)(1) allows a party to seek dismissal of a cause of action asserted against him because “a defe…

LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) "dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

To determine whether a claim adequately states a cause of action, the court must “liberally construe” it, accept the facts alleged in it as true, accord it “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (id. at 152; see Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A., 22 NY3d 881, 884 [2013]; Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d 46, 52 [2012]), and determine only whether the facts, as alleged, fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Taxi Tours, Inc. v Go New York Tours, Inc., 41 NY3d 991 , …

Co. of NY, 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002], citing Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). "[T]o be considered documentary, evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity" ( Fontanetta v John Doe 1 , 73 AD3d 78, 86 [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Minchala v 829 Jefferson, LLC , 177 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019]). "[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, th…

Turning now to Motion Seq. 003, on a motion to dismiss brought under CPLR § 3211 (a)(7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994][citations omitted]).

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction," and we 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" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Rovello , 40 NY2d at 634 ).

"On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a 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'" ( Acala v Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. , 222 AD3d 706, 707, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). "'The ultimate question is whether, ac…

"On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, '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'" ( Williams v Silverstone , 215 AD3d 787, 788, quoting Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88).

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction," and we must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co. , 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976]).

We are required to accept these allegations as true and accord plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

DISCUSSION On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a viable claim, 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” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and the plaintiff must be afforded every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 638 [1994]).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Further, while a court may "freely consider" affirmations submitted by a plaintiff in deciding a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), the affirmations from Encore's representatives similarly fail to link the moving defendant to any wrongdoing ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2026 matter of law.” Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 [1994].

(See Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [I 994]).

In determining 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" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Sassi v Mobile Life Support Servs., Inc., 37 NY3d 236 , 239 [2021]).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Thus, even without recourse to CPLR 202, plaintiff's common-law causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 5), reckless inflectional of emotional distress (Count 8), and sexual assault and battery (Counts 11-13) are all time-barred by New York's statute of limitations. ( See CPLR 215[3] [one-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for assault and battery]; Jarusauskaite v Almod Diamonds, Ltd. , 198 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2021] […

(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; JF Capital Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 25 NY3d 759, 764 [2015].) The court's inquiry is limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs pleadings; accordingly, its only function is to determine whether the facts as alleged fit within a cognizable legal theory.

(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994].) Accordingly, the court's role in a motion to dismiss is not to determine whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations, or whether there is evidentiary support for the complaint.

(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994].) Accordingly, the court's role in a motion to dismiss is not to determine whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations, or whether there is evidentiary support for the complaint.

(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; JF Capital Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 25 NY3d 759, 764 [2015].) A court's inquiry is limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings-that is, whether the facts set forth by the plaintiff sufficiently apprise the court and the defendants of the transactions and/or occurrences that make up the material elements of a cause of action.

Further, on such a motion, the complaint is to be construed liberally and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

Under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the movant has the burden to demonstrate that the complaint, construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff, states no legally cognizable cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Goshen v Mut.

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for a complaint to be dismissed if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.” Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 [1994].

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for a complaint to be dismissed if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.” Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 [1994].

CPLR § 3211(a)(1) allows for a complaint to be dismissed if there is a “defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.” Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 [1994].

When the court considers the dismissal of a pleading it must "accept the facts as alleged in the [pleading] as true, accord ... the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory," even if the pleading is "inartfully drafted" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994] citing Marone v Marone, 50 NY2d 481, 484 [1980], Rovella v Orofino Realty Co. Inc., 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976], and Guggenheim…