It is well settled that on motions to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7) "the pleadings must be liberally construed and the facts alleged accepted as true; the court must determine 'only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'" ( Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co., 241 A.D.2d 114, 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 citing Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). Moreover, in a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) the court is limited to determining whether the complaint states a cause of action, and such complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff (see Edmond v. IBM Corp., 91 N.Y.2d 949, 951, 671 N.Y.S.2d 437, 694 N.E.2d 438; Sobol v. Goldman, 259 A.D.2d 526, 686 N.Y.S.2d 477; Bernstein v. Kelso, 231 A.D.2d 314, 318, 659 N.Y.S.2d 276; LoPinto v. J.W. Mays, Inc., 170 A.D.2d 582, 583, 566 N.Y.S.2d 357). The question on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is "not whether an issue of fact exists warranting trial, or even whether there is any evidentiary support for the complaint, but whether it can be determined, from within the four corners of the complaint, that plaintiffs have stated any cognizable cause of action" ( Glassman v. Catli, 111 A.D.2d 744, 745, 489 N.Y.S.2d 777 see e.g., Underpinning & Found Constructors v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 46 N.Y.2d 459, 462, 414 N.Y.S.2d 298, 386 N.E.2d 1319; Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 274-275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17; Holly v. Pennysaver Corp., 98 A.D.2d 570, 571-572, 471 N.Y.S.2d 611; Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 65, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121). It is well established that in considering a motion to dismiss the court must accept the complaint as true and give the complaint every possible favorable inference in construing its allegations. A pleading must give notice of the event from which it arises and cover the substantial material elements that make up the particular cause of action relied upon. A complaint need not, and should not, anticipate and refute defenses. In opposing a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support the allegations in their complaint ( Palmisano v. Modernismo Publs., 98 AD2d 953).