SCHWARTZ v. SCHWARTZ

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the allegations in the complaint should be accepted as true ( see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Such a motion should be granted only where, even viewing the allegations as true, the plaintiff still cannot establish a cause of action ( see Morales v Copy Right, Inc., 28 AD3d 440, 441; Hartman v Morganstern, 28 AD3d 423, 424; Asgahar v Tringali Realty, Inc., 18 AD3d 408, 409).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action alleging fraud ( see Richmond Shop Smart, Inc. v Kenbar Dev. Ctr., LLC, 32 AD3d 423), conversion ( see Hearst v Hearst, 50 AD3d 959, 962-963; Gilman v Abagnale, 235 AD2d 989, 991), and unjust enrichment ( see Snitovsky v Forest Hills Orthopedic Group, P.C., 44 AD3d 845; Cruz v McAneney, 31 AD3d 54, 59). The complaint also stated a cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust ( see Cruz v McAneney, 31 AD3d 54, 58-59; Panish v Panish, 24 AD3d 642, 643).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.