Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Deirdre E. Tracey of counsel), for appellants.
Mitchel B. Craner, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered July 15, 2015, which granted the defendant Jose Done's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the sole criterion is whether, from the four corners of the complaint, “factual allegations are discerned
which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law” (
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275,
401 N.Y.S.2d 182,
372 N.E.2d 17;
see
Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Assn., Inc. v. Beechwood Org., 80 A.D.3d 643, 649,
915 N.Y.S.2d 117;
Fishberger v. Voss, 51 A.D.3d 627, 628,
858 N.Y.S.2d 257;
McGuire v. Sterling Doubleday Enters., L.P., 19 A.D.3d 660, 661–662,
799 N.Y.S.2d 65). Although the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (
see
Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88,
614 N.Y.S.2d 972,
638 N.E.2d 511), the allegations in a complaint cannot be vague and conclusory (
see
Stoianoff v. Gahona, 248 A.D.2d 525, 526,
670 N.Y.S.2d 204), and “[b]are legal conclusions” will not suffice (
Baron v. Galasso, 83 A.D.3d 626, 628,
921 N.Y.S.2d 100;
see
Riback v. Margulis, 43 A.D.3d 1023,
842 N.Y.S.2d 54). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant Jose Done's motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the conclusory allegations therein were insufficient to state a cause of action against him.
BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.