| Palo v Cronin & Byczek, LLP |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06966 [43 AD3d 1127] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Stephen Palo, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Cronin & Byczek,LLP, Respondent. |
—[*1] Cronin & Byczek, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Howard Greenwald of counsel), respondent prose.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by theirbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), enteredOctober 17, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss thecomplaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) is denied.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) "will fail if, taking all facts alleged astrue and according them every possible inference favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint statesin some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law" (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser,Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38 [2006]; see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. vState St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 591 [2005]; Leon v Martinez, 84NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). "Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summaryjudgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claim," is irrelevant to thedetermination of a predisclosure CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss (Shaya B. Pac., LLC vWilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d at 38).
Under the foregoing standards, we conclude that the plaintiffs adequately stated a [*2]cause of action for legal malpractice. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelosand Carni, JJ., concur.