Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Natalia AMARO, an infant under the age of fourteen years by her mother and natural guardian, Francisca ALMAZAN, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GANI REALTY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Hajdar Bajraktari, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered May 1, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by lead-based paint, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants landlord and managing agent's cross motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed the amended complaint and second supplemental bill of particulars timely served, and sua sponte consolidated the action with another action brought by plaintiffs against the owner of the building they moved into after moving out of defendants' building, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ). The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and accord the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). 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 (id. at 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), however, a court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint, the criterion being not whether the proponent of the pleading has simply stated a cause of action, but whether he or she actually has one (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17 [1977] [motion must be denied if “from [the] four corners [of the pleading] factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law”]; Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114, 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1998] ).
Giving plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970 [1976] ), defendants' evidence that plaintiffs were not the tenants of record, that plaintiffs' occupancy of the apartment was not known to them, and that they did not have notice that a child under seven years old was living in the apartment is rebutted by plaintiffs' evidence that, for approximately two months during the summer of 2004, they lived in the apartment with the tenant of record, who was the adult plaintiff's sister, and the latter's two daughters, one of whom was under seven years old at the time. It thus appears that defendants had notice that at least one child under seven was living in the apartment (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 646, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135 [1996] ). For present purposes, the contradiction between the original complaint's allegation that plaintiffs were living in the apartment during the summer of 2003, and plaintiffs' pleadings in the other action that they were living in Chicago during the summer of 2003, was adequately explained as a typographical error or miscommunication with counsel, and, like the inconsistent statements made in the pleadings in the other action concerning plaintiffs' residence during the summer of 2004, merely raises issues of credibility for the factfinder.
The court properly permitted plaintiffs to amend the complaint and serve the second supplemental bill of particulars, dispensing with a motion for leave to amend, where there was no showing of prejudice by defendants (see Cherebin v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 A.D.3d 364, 365, 841 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2007] ), and, in opposition to defendants' cross motion to dismiss, plaintiffs submitted evidentiary proof that would have satisfied their burden on a motion for leave. The motion court properly consolidated two actions that concern the same injuries to the same plaintiffs and involve many common issues of law and fact.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 17, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)