AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

PEARL KLEINMAN, et al., plaintiffs, v. POINT SEAL RESTORATION CORP., et al., defendants (and a third-party action) (Action No. 1). DIANE MORROW, respondent,

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint in Action No. 2 is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and that action is severed against the remaining defendants.

The board of directors of the appellant High Point of Hartsdale I Condominium (hereinafter the Condominium) hired the defendant Point Seal Restoration Corp. to replace the roof of one of its buildings. The hiring is governed by the business judgment rule, which bars judicial review of the actions of a board of directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of corporate purposes (see, Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 537-538; W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Carr, 262 A.D.2d 310; Cooper v. 6 W. 20th St. Corp., 254 A.D.2d 110). After the board of directors made a prima facie showing that it acted within the scope of its authority under the bylaws of the Condominium and in good faith in deciding which contractor would perform the job, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating the existence of an issue of fact regarding the alleged bad faith, willful misconduct, and self-dealing of the board of directors (see, Cooper v. 6 W. 20th St. Tenants Corp., supra). Accordingly, the appellants' motion is granted.

Bracken, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KLEINMAN v. POINT SEAL RESTORATION CORP
(Dec 27, 1999)