| Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v Lasertone Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06301 [76 AD3d 519] |
| August 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc., Doing Business as R+LCarriers, Appellant, v Lasertone Corporation, Respondent. |
—[*1] Harold M. Hoffman, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated October 14, 2009, whichgranted the defendant's renewed motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) todismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's renewedmotion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint is denied.
In this action, the plaintiff denominates itself as "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc.,doing business as R+L Carriers" (hereinafter the plaintiff). In its complaint, the plaintiff allegesthat "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc.," is an Ohio corporation which does business inNew York under the name "R+L Carriers." The complaint contains four causes of actionpremised upon the plaintiff's alleged agreement with the defendant to provide carrier servicesand the defendant's failure to pay amounts due under the terms of their agreement. The defendantfiled a pre-answer motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss thecomplaint, contending that it contracted with an entity other than the plaintiff, namely "R&LCarriers, Inc." In an order dated June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the motion, with leaveto renew. In support of the defendant's renewed motion, the defendant submitted two certificatesof incorporation establishing that "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc." and "R&L Carriers,Inc." are separate corporations. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted therenewed motion. We reverse.
Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit ofevery possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)(see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976]; Pike v NewYork Life Ins. Co., 72 AD3d 1043 [2010]), the plaintiff adequately alleged the causes ofaction in the complaint. Further, a party seeking to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) "mustsubmit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusivelydisposes of the plaintiff's claim" (Elowv Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674, 675 [2009]; see Galvan v 9519 Third Ave. [*2]Rest.Corp., 74 AD3d 743 [2010]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the certificates ofincorporation it submitted did not conclusively establish that it contracted with "R&L Carriers,Inc." instead of the plaintiff, "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc.," which does businessunder the name "R+L Carriers."
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion. Dillon, J.P.,Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.