KASS v. ZASLAV

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), a court "should `accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" ( Parsippany Constr. Co., Inc. v Clark Patterson Assoc, P.C., 41 AD3d 805, 806, quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Applying this standard here, the complaint does not state a cause of action against the defendants. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.