
    Arnold Cherry, Respondent, v Paul O. Duke et al., Individually and Doing Business as Duke & Ghattas Associates, LLC, and Others, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    [19 NYS3d 776]
   In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the defendants Paul O. Duke and Adib Z. Ghattas, each individually and doing business as Duke & Ghattas Associates, LLC, also known as Ghattas Engineering, PLLC, also known as Ghattas Corporation, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated August 11, 2014, which denied their pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss, “affidavits may be used freely to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims” (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]; see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 591 [2005]).

Accepting as true the facts pleaded in the complaint, as amplified by the plaintiffs affidavit, and according the plaintiff “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), we find that the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.  