Board of Managers of Whispering Pines at Colonial Woods Condominium II v. Whispering Pines Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of Whispering Pines at Colonial Woods Condominium II v. Whispering Pines Associates

204 A.D.2d 376, 614 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4787

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 376 (Board of Managers of Whispering Pines at Colonial Woods Condominium II v. Whispering Pines Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Managers of Whispering Pines at Colonial Woods Condominium II v. Whispering Pines Associates, 204 A.D.2d 376, 614 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duties, (1) the defendants Steven A. Klar, David Brodsky, and Marvin Millich appeal from so much of an [377]*377order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 20, 1991, as denied their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated March 29, 1993, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the seventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim of the defendants Klar, Brodsky, and Millich and those same defendants cross-appeal from so much of that order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action.

Ordered that the order dated November 20, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 29, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action stated a cognizable claim for breach of fiduciary duties owed by a sponsor-appointed, first board of managers of a condominium development (see, Board of Mgrs. v Fairway at N. Hills, 193 AD2d 322). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for failure to state a cause of action. The court likewise was correct in denying the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the seventh cause of action and the seventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim respectively, as issues of fact exist precluding any award of summary judgment on that cause of action, affirmative defense, and counterclaim. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duties, (1) the defendants Steven A. Klar, David Brodsky, and Marvin Millich appeal from so much of an [377]*377order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 20, 1991, as denied their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the same court dated March 29, 1993, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the seventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim of the defendants Klar, Brodsky, and Millich and those same defendants cross-appeal from so much of that order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action.

Ordered that the order dated November 20, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 29, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action stated a cognizable claim for breach of fiduciary duties owed by a sponsor-appointed, first board of managers of a condominium development (see, Board of Mgrs. v Fairway at N. Hills, 193 AD2d 322). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for failure to state a cause of action. The court likewise was correct in denying the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the seventh cause of action and the seventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim respectively, as issues of fact exist precluding any award of summary judgment on that cause of action, affirmative defense, and counterclaim. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 376, 614 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-whispering-pines-at-colonial-woods-condominium-ii-v-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack