Defendants' decisions concerning the manner and extent of repairs and renovations to the building were within the scope of their authority under the by-laws and proprietary lease of the cooperative, and were therefore shielded from judicial review by the business judgment rule, plaintiff having failed to substantiate her claims of fraudulent misrepresentations and other breaches of fiduciary duties ( see, Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 538; Katz v. 215 W. 91st St. Corp., 215 A.D.2d 265, 266).
Plaintiff did not present any new facts in her motion to renew, nor would her papers alter the result of the prior motion, such that the renewal request was properly denied ( see, Mangine v. Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476, 477).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.