M. SOBOL, INC. v. GOLDMAN

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

As a general rule pleadings should be liberally construed and a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action when a cause can be discerned in the facts alleged, no matter how poorly those facts are stated ( see, Lapis Enters. v. International Blimpie Corp., 84 A.D.2d 286, 292). The complaint is sufficient as a pleading to state a cause of action against the defendant Martin Goldman to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered ( see, Articolor Graphic Co. v. After Hours Books, 32 A.D.2d 548). Furthermore, to the extent that the Supreme Court treated the motion as one for summary judgment ( see, CPLR 3211 [c]), we find that the conflicting affidavits create triable issues of fact as to whether Goldman acted as a principal or an agent with respect to the orders reflected in the invoices and account statements ( cf., Schneider Fuel Oil v. DeGennaro, 238 A.D.2d 495).

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.