Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. The amended complaint alleges no facts from which it could be inferred that defendants had any involvement with the alleged scheme of plaintiffs business partners to illegally obtain his ownership interest in the Volkswagen dealership in which they each owned an interest. Deniál of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) was not warranted because plaintiff failed to suggest the existence of any facts essential to justify opposition but that cannot yet be stated (see Copp v Ramirez, 62 AD3d 23, 31-32 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.