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.
Harvey SCHLACKMAN, et al., respondents, v. ROBIN S. WEINGAST & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., defendants, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover premiums paid for life insurance policies and for punitive damages, the defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 18, 2003, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) and (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A pleading attacked for insufficiency must be accorded a liberal construction, and “if it states, in some recognizable form, any cause of action known to our law,” it cannot be dismissed (Clevenger v. Baker Voorhis & Co., 8 N.Y.2d 187, 188, 203 N.Y.S.2d 812, 168 N.E.2d 643; see Cooney v. Cooney, 13 A.D.3d 407, 787 N.Y.S.2d 67; Home Reporter v. Brooklyn Spectator, 34 A.D.2d 956, 312 N.Y.S.2d 433). The allegations in the complaint, and in any supporting affidavit, must be taken as true (see Gingold v. Beekman, 183 A.D.2d 870, 586 N.Y.S.2d 893), and the plaintiff must be accorded “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; see Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190). Applying these principles, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter Mass Mutual) which was to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, based on a failure to state a cause of action.
In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of Mass Mutual which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue, as the plaintiffs are the real parties in interest (see generally Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, 239 A.D.2d 233, 234, 657 N.Y.S.2d 654; Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S & N Travel, 238 A.D.2d 292, 656 N.Y.S.2d 299).
Mass Mutual's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: May 23, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)