| Innes v Rodriguez |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 51230(U) [44 Misc 3d 1222(A)] |
| Decided on August 15, 2014 |
| Supreme Court, Suffolk County |
| Whelan, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Ralph Innes,
Plaintiff,
against Gisela Marine Rodriguez, JUSTO RODRIGUEZ, ROBERT D'AMICO, NEW YORK WOOD STOCK, INC., MOHAMED SLAMAN, LFC FINE FINISHING, INC., RUTH PENA, DAVID PENA, MARTHA BRANDT, SHELDON BRANDT, DIRECT BUY OF NEW YORK METRO, DIRECT BUY OF LONG ISLAND, DIRECT BUY OF NASSAU COUNTY, DIRECT BUY, INC., NAUSHAD BENGSTON, ROBERT BENGSTON and TILEXA DESIGN, INC., Defendants. |
ORDERED that this motion (#001) by the defendants, Naushad Mehta s/h/a Naushad Bengston, Robert Bengston and Purchasing Strategies, Inc. d/b/a Direct Buy of Long Island s/h/a Direct Buy of Long Island, for dismissal of the complaint to the extent it asserts claims against these moving defendants, is considered under CPLR 3211 and is granted. The moving papers sufficiently demonstrated that the complaint is legally insufficient with respect to the claims asserted against the moving defendants (see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Mariano v Fiorvante, 118 AD3d 961, 989 NYS2d 55 [2d Dept 2014]; Cazona v Antanasio, 118 AD3d 837, 989 NYS2d 44 [2d Dept 2014]; Orchid Constr. v Gottbetter, 89 AD3d 708, 932 NYS2d 100 [2d Dept 2011]). Since the court is without opposing papers from the plaintiff, the moving defendants' showing of its entitlement to the relief requested was not controverted.
In view of the foregoing, the instant motion is granted pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). All claims advanced in the complaint, to the extent asserted against Naushad Mehta s/h/a Naushad Bengston, Robert Bengston and Purchasing Strategies, Inc. d/b/a Direct Buy of Long Island s/h/a [*2]Direct Buy of Long Island, are dismissed.