Opinion
2014-07-30
Rachel SIONY, et al., plaintiffs-counterclaim defendants-appellants, v. Rahim SIUNYKALIMI, etc., et al., respondents; Shirin Siony, counterclaim defendant-appellant.
Goldberg & Rimberg, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Robert L. Rimberg and Mindy Kallus of counsel), for plaintiffs-counterclaim defendants-appellants and counterclaim defendant-appellant. Alan J. Firestone, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew S. Fisher of counsel), for respondents.
Goldberg & Rimberg, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Robert L. Rimberg and Mindy Kallus of counsel), for plaintiffs-counterclaim defendants-appellants and counterclaim defendant-appellant. Alan J. Firestone, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew S. Fisher of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs-counterclaim defendants and the additional counterclaim defendant appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated November 26, 2013, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the second counterclaim, which alleged that they breached a fiduciary duty to the defendants.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On a motion to dismiss a complaint or counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the opposing party the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see Mazzei v. Kyriacou, 98 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 951 N.Y.S.2d 557;Cerciello v. Admiral Ins. Brokerage Corp., 90 A.D.3d 967, 967, 936 N.Y.S.2d 224;Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 A.D.3d 703, 703–704, 864 N.Y.S.2d 70). Here, accepting all factual allegations as true and according the defendants the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see CPLR 3211; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511), the defendants' second counterclaim sets forth in sufficient detail ( see CPLR 3016[b] ) facts which, if proven, would show that the plaintiffs-counterclaim defendants and the counterclaim defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the defendants and breached this duty ( see Appleton Acquisition, LLC v. National Hous. Partnership, 10 N.Y.3d 250, 258, 856 N.Y.S.2d 522, 886 N.E.2d 144;Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 73 N.Y.2d 461, 541 N.Y.S.2d 746, 539 N.E.2d 574;Chiu v. Man Choi Chiu, 71 A.D.3d 621, 623, 896 N.Y.S.2d 132;Benedict v. Whitman Breed Abbott & Morgan, 282 A.D.2d 416, 418, 722 N.Y.S.2d 586;Friedman v. Dalmazio, 228 A.D.2d 549, 549–550, 644 N.Y.S.2d 548;cf. Faith Assembly v. Titledge of N.Y. Abstract, LLC, 106 A.D.3d 47, 961 N.Y.S.2d 542). SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.