facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint' by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hendrix v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-5011, 2013 WL 6835168, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2013) (same). Finally, where “a plaintiff alleges a claim based on a written instrument,” if “the documents contradict the allegations of a plaintiffs complaint, the documents control and the [cjourt need not accept as true the allegations in the complaint.” Bill Diodato Photography LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 12-CV-847, 2012 WL 4335164, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond, 968 F.Supp.2d
recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true holding that court may look both to complaint itself and to any documents attached as exhibits to complaint holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint holding that for the purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss courts take allegations as true unless contradicted by  documentary evidence  from the exhibits attached to the complaint