defense to the asserted claim in New York

2024Plaintiff's signed agreement with the nonparty funder, selling a portion of his interest in any potential future litigation proceeds, "conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law," as it shows that defendants did not commit any misconduct by failing to warn plaintiff of the terms of the agreement ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; see CPLR 3211[a][1]), which plaintiff admittedly signed ( see VXI Lux Holdco S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC , 171 AD3d 189 , 193 [1st Dept 2019]; Tozzi v Mack , 169 AD3d 547 , 548 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 908 [2019]).

2014Additionally, under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal based on documentary evidence will be warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Scadura v Robillard, 256 AD2d 567 [1998]).

2025Int'l Grp., Inc. , 30 NY3d 288, 298 (2017).

2024CPLR 3211(a)(1) provides that a court may dismiss a proceeding based upon “documen- tary evidence.” Dismissal is warranted under 3211(a)(1) only where “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law.” Carlson, 30 N.Y.3d at 298 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011This omission leaves the term “any party” undefined, rendering the above quoted language ambiguous and permitting consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine its meaning (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572-573 [1986]; see also 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 152 [2002] [dismissal warranted under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) only if the documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law]).

2011In order to obtain dismissal based on documentary evidence, the documentary evidence “must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim” (Trade Source v Westchester Wood Works, 290 AD2d 437 [2002]; see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 152 [2002]).

2018Bank , 8 NY3d at 324 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and dismissal of the third cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) or (7) is not appropriate.

2011This omission leaves the term “any party” undefined, rendering the above quoted language ambiguous and permitting consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine its meaning (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572-573 [1986]; see also 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 152 [2002] [dismissal warranted under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) only if the documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law]).

2006Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; Sheridan v Town of Orangetown, 21 AD3d 365 [2005]; Klein v Gutman, 12 AD3d 417 [2004]).