| Aqua NY of Sea Cliff v Buckeye Pipeline Co., L.P. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05403 [119 AD3d 829] |
| July 23, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 Aqua NY Of Sea Cliff et al.,Appellants, v Buckeye Pipeline Company, L.P., et al.,Respondents. |
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Paul J.Napoli of counsel), for appellants.
Porzio Bromberg & Newman, New York, N.Y. (Charles J. Stoia of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for strict products liability and negligence,the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered September 6, 2012, as granted those branchesof the defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes ofaction alleging strict products liability and failure to warn.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether from the complaint's "four cornersfactual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of actioncognizable at law" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Country Pointe at Dix HillsHome Owners Assn., Inc. v Beechwood Org., 80 AD3d 643, 649 [2011]; Fishberger v Voss, 51 AD3d627 [2008]). Although the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are to beaccorded every favorable inference (see Gershon v Goldberg, 30 AD3d 372 [2006]), "bare legalconclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled toany such consideration" (Ribackv Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2007]; see Baron v Galasso, 83 AD3d 626, 628 [2011]), nor arelegal conclusions or factual claims which are inherently incredible (see Greene v Doral Conference Ctr.Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 430 [2005]). Applying the above principles here, theSupreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging strict productsliability and failure to warn.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly beforethis Court (see Fucile v L.C.R.Dev., Ltd., 102 AD3d 915 [2013]). Dillon, J.P., Lott, Austin and Barros, JJ.,concur.