Opinion
2018–05551 Index No. 606848/17
05-27-2020
LAUNDRY PALACE U, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NASSAU COUNTY, et al., Respondents.
Okun & Churneftsky, LLP, New York, NY (John M. Churneftsky of counsel), for appellants. Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag and Andrew R. Scott of counsel), for respondents.
Okun & Churneftsky, LLP, New York, NY (John M. Churneftsky of counsel), for appellants.
Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag and Andrew R. Scott of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr., J.), entered April 2, 2018. The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint is denied.
The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that certain provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code, chapter XXI, title D–21–Drycleaners and Laundromats were unconstitutional, unconstitutionally vague, served no legitimate purpose, and lacked any substantial relationship to the legislative intent. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal.
" ‘A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable disposition’ " ( Matter of Tilcon, N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 930 N.Y.S.2d 34, quoting Staver Co. v. Skrobisch, 144 A.D.2d 449, 450, 533 N.Y.S.2d 967 ; see Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 N.Y. 45, 51, 43 N.E.2d 803 ; Law Research Serv. v. Honeywell, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 900, 901, 298 N.Y.S.2d 1 ; Verity v. Larkin, 18 A.D.2d 842, 238 N.Y.S.2d 248 ). "[W]here a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court's power to ‘render a declaratory judgment ... as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ ( CPLR 3001 ; see CPLR 3017[b] ), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied" ( Matter of Tilcon, N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 A.D.3d at 1150, 930 N.Y.S.2d 34 ; see Guthart v. Nassau County, 178 A.D.3d 777, 111 N.Y.S.3d 886 ; Staver Co. v. Skrobisch, 144 A.D.2d at 450, 533 N.Y.S.2d 967 ).
Here, the complaint was sufficient to invoke the court's power to render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy (see CPLR 3001 ; Staver Co. v. Skrobisch, 144 A.D.2d at 450, 533 N.Y.S.2d 967 ). A complaint will not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) merely because the plaintiffs may not be entitled to a declaration in their favor (see Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 N.Y. at 51, 43 N.E.2d 803 ; Verity v. Larkin, 18 A.D.2d at 842, 238 N.Y.S.2d 248 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.