Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium v. Crestmont Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium v. Crestmont Management Corp.

186 A.D.2d 49, 587 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10578

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 17, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered July 16, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action by plaintiff condominium to recover reserve funds allegedly misappropriated by its managing agent, defendant-appellant, a depositary of the funds, is alleged to have had knowledge of unauthorized transfers made by the managing agent from accounts it kept with defendant, or with a failure to make proper inquiry with respect thereto. We reject defendant’s contention that the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to support a claim against it. The transac[50] tions in question are specified, and whether defendant knew or should have known of the defalcations properly states causes of action under various theories (see, Matter of Knox, 64 NY2d 434, 438). Nor does plaintiff seek recovery directly under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-703. Reference to that section is made only for the purpose of establishing that the funds were to be used for a specific purpose. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered July 16, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action by plaintiff condominium to recover reserve funds allegedly misappropriated by its managing agent, defendant-appellant, a depositary of the funds, is alleged to have had knowledge of unauthorized transfers made by the managing agent from accounts it kept with defendant, or with a failure to make proper inquiry with respect thereto. We reject defendant’s contention that the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to support a claim against it. The transac[50] tions in question are specified, and whether defendant knew or should have known of the defalcations properly states causes of action under various theories (see, Matter of Knox, 64 NY2d 434, 438). Nor does plaintiff seek recovery directly under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-703. Reference to that section is made only for the purpose of establishing that the funds were to be used for a specific purpose. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium v. Crestmont Management Corp., 186 A.D.2d 49, 587 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

186 A.D.2d 49 (Board of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium v. Crestmont Management Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related