| Dinerman v Jewish Bd. of Family & Children's Servs., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07610 [55 AD3d 530] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Chanie Dinerman et al., Appellants, v Jewish Board of Family &Children's Services, Inc. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Epstein & Weil, New York, N.Y. (Judith H. Weil and Cheryl Schreck of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for misrepresentation and civil rights violations, theplaintiffs appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), datedApril 20, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Counterforce which was todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) a statedportion of a second order of the same court, also dated April 20, 2007.
Ordered that the appeal from the second order dated April 20, 2007 is dismissed as abandoned;and it is further,
Ordered that the first order dated April 20, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it isfurther,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action . . . , thepleadings must be liberally construed . . . The sole criterion is whether from [thecomplaint's] four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause ofaction cognizable at law" (Gershon vGoldberg, 30 AD3d 372, 373 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Morone vMorone, 50 NY2d 481, 484 [1980]; 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander's, Inc., 46 NY2d506, 509 [1979]). However, while [*2]the allegations in the complaintare to be accepted as true when considering a motion to dismiss (see Leon v Martinez, 84NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claimsflatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration" (Garber v Board of Trustees of State Univ. ofN.Y., 38 AD3d 833, 834 [2007], quoting Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91[1999]).
Here, even construing the pleadings liberally and accepting them as true, they state no cognizablelegal claim against Counterforce and its director Martin Wangrofsky (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7];see e.g. Garber v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 38 AD3d at 834; Gertler vGoodgold, 107 AD2d 481, 485 [1985], affd 66 NY2d 946 [1985]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly granted that branch of Counterforce's motion which was to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
The appellants have not raised any arguments regarding their appeal from the second order datedApril 20, 2007. Thus, their appeal from that order must be dismissed as abandoned (see Matter of West Bushwick Urban RenewalArea Phase 2, 50 AD3d 695 [2008]).
It should be noted that the plaintiffs have repeatedly demonstrated their litigiousness before the trialcourt and this Court. While we decline Counterforce's request to impose sanctions against the plaintiffsat this time for bringing an allegedly frivolous appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1), the plaintiffsare warned that future motions or appeals undertaken to harass or disturb the defendants will subjectthem to sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Enright v Vasile, 205 AD2d 732, 733[1994]). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.