DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court must accept as true the facts as alleged within the four corners of the complaint and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference to determine whether the allegations fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88; Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634). Viewing the complaint under this guideline, it sufficiently stated causes of action alleging breach of an oral contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.
The Supreme Court providently granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional claims pursuant to Labor Law article 6 for unpaid or improperly withheld wages ( see Leszczynski v. Kelly McGlynn, 281 A.D.2d 519) . The Supreme Court correctly determined that the additional Labor Law article 6 cause of action alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss ( see Labor Law §§ 190, 193, 198; Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, 187 Misc.2d 805, revd on other grounds 305 A.D.2d 453; Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, cert denied 528 U.S. 1119).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.