In a fairly normal fashion, without much to indicate why the pleading was good enough, Supreme Court, Kings County has denied a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss in Farkas v Mascolo
2015 NY Slip Op 01605  Decided on February 25, 2015  Appellate Division, Second Department.

“On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87). “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38; see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19; Tooma v Grossbarth, 121 AD3d 1093, 1095).

Here, construing the complaint liberally, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we are required to do, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Palmieri v Biggiani, 108 AD3d 604, 609; Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913; cf. Schiller v Bender, Burrows and Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758-759). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.”