Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered May 11, 2011, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Per Curiam.

Order (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered May 11, 2011, modified by reinstating plaintiff's first cause of action for false imprisonment; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's false imprisonment claim was sufficient to survive defendant's preanswer motion to dismiss. While the endorsed complaint initially served by the pro se plaintiff may have been inadequate even under the liberal pleading requirements of CCA 902(a)(1), the formal complaint subsequently served by plaintiff sufficiently set forth facts stating a cause of action for false imprisonment (see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451 [1975], cert denied 423 US 929 [1975]; Sirlin v Town of New Castle, 15 AD3d 387 [2005]). "As a matter of pleading the defendant has the burden of proving legal justification as an affirmative defense" (Broughton at 458). Nor did the documentary evidence submitted by defendant conclusively establish that its actions were privileged as a matter of law (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). To the extent defendant argues that its actions can be inferred to have been reasonable based on the surrounding circumstances, that argument raises issues "beyond the four corners of the documentary evidence relied upon by defendant, issues which cannot be resolved at this juncture" (New York City Prop. Mgt., LLC v Santos, 18 Misc 3d 5, 7 [2007]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: January 25, 2012