In Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp. (257 AD2d 76 [1st Dept 1999], affd 94 NY2d 659 [2000]) the de-fendant moved to dismiss a civil action based on "extrinsic evidence" consisting of "affirmations and exhib-its." (257 AD2d at 80.) The IAS justice denied the motion, finding from the "four corners" of the complaint that it alleged a cog-nizable cause of action. (Id. at 80.) The Appellate Division reversed. (Id.) "Where extrinsic evidence is used" to support a motion to dismiss, the Court explained, the issue for determination is "whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one." (Id. at 81.) Accordingly, in cases where the complaint's validity has "been negated beyond substantial question by the affidavits and evidentiary matter submitted" and it is clear that plaintiff "does not have a [viable] cause of action," dismissal under CPLR 3211 is warranted. (257 AD2d at 81.) In Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apartment Corp, the jury found that the corporate defendant and the indi-vidual defendants, including Biondi in his official capacity as a board member, violated federal housing laws when they discriminated against a proposed subtenant who was African-American. Also, the court found that there was evidence to support the shareholder's claim that the board members acted in bad faith, and with a purpose that was not in the best interest of the cooperative, when they denied her sublet application and issued a notice of default against her for "objectionable conduct," arising from her accusation of racism against the board and Biondi. Id. at 662. The First Department held that extrinsic evidence submitted by the defendant including "a post-submission letter to the court from plaintiff's counsel" submitted in a previous federal action showed that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action.