YOUNGWALL v. SANTOS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for interference with child custody, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lisa A. Cairo, J.), dated October 9, 2025.  The order granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant alleging that the defendant interfered with his custody of his minor child.  The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiff opposed the motion.  In an order dated October 9, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Phipps v. Kuonen, 242 AD3d 781, 782–783 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “Dismissal of the complaint is warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery” (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142;  see Myers v. Schneiderman, 30 NY3d 1, 11).

Although a cause of action alleging interference with a plaintiff's right to custody and control of their children is actionable (see Adika v. County of Rockland, 96 A.D.2d 1025, 1025), here, accepting the plaintiff's factual allegations asserted in the complaint as true and affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently state a cause of action (see Pickle v. Page, 252 NY 474, 482).

DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, WARHIT and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.