¶ Orders entered February 2, 1984 affirmed, and order dated February 2, 1984 affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
¶ On a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and then determine whether those facts fit within any cognizable legal theory ( Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633). Applying that standard to the complaint at bar, we find that on its face the complaint states causes of action by plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary for breach of the restrictive covenant in the lease entered into between defendant Richmond Associates and codefendant Ziggy's Mall, Inc. ( Goodman-Marks Assoc. v. Westbury Post Assoc., 70 A.D.2d 145), and for fraudulent inducement by Richmond's agents causing plaintiff to enter into its own lease with Richmond Associates ( Hobart v. Schuler, 55 N.Y.2d 1023; Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155; cf. Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied ( Kaplan v. Simone Bros. Auto Body, 77 A.D.2d 863). We have examined the other contentions raised and find them to be without merit.
¶ Lazer, J.P., Mangano, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.