ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the Supreme Court must determine whether, accepting as true the factual averments in the complaint and according the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, the plaintiff "can succeed upon any reasonable view of the facts stated" (People v. New York City Tr. Auth., 59 N.Y.2d 343, 348; Campaign for Fiscal Equality v. State of New York, 86 N.Y.2d 307, 318; see also Blumenreich v. North Shore Health Sys., 287 A.D.2d 529; TKO Fleet Enters. v. Elite Limousine Plus, 286 A.D.2d 436). Applying this standard, the complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for the defendant landlord's alleged breach of a duty to maintain the leased premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233; see also Delaney v. First Concourse Mgt. Co., 275 A.D.2d 233; Fleming v. New York City Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 525; Brown v. New York City Hous. Auth., 250 A.D.2d 719; Morinia v. New York City Hous. Auth., 250 A.D.2d 657).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.