Opinion
August 25, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action ( see, Weiss v. Cuddy Feder, 200 A.D.2d 665). If from the four corners of the complaint factual allegations are discerned which, taken together, manifest any cause of action cognizable at law, a motion to dismiss will fail ( see, Weiss v. Cuddy Feder, supra; Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268; see also, Edison v Viva Intl., 70 A.D.2d 379). The court's function is to "accept * * * each and every allegation forwarded by the plaintiff without expressing any opinion as to the plaintifFs ability ultimately to establish the truth of these averments before the trier of the facts" ( 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 506, 509, citing Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 408; see also, Carney v. Memorial Hosp. Nursing Home, 64 N.Y.2d 770; 6A Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y. Prac § 38:41, at 290-291). Measured by this standard, the order denying the defendant's preanswer motion to dismiss was properly made.
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Luciano, JJ., concur.