Cannings v. East Midtown Plaza Housing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cannings v. East Midtown Plaza Housing Co.

104 A.D.3d 443, 960 N.Y.S.2d 413

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 7, 2013·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted the motion dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its burden to show that its decision to take out a loan from a private bank to finance the replacement of windows in the cooperative building, rather than to [444] seek a public loan, was a good faith business judgment which did not involve any self-dealing (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [1990]; Simpson v Berkley Owner’s Corp., 213 AD2d 207 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant showed that it decided not to apply for the public loan because a condition thereof was that defendant would be obligated to remain in the Mitchell-Lama program for another 15 years. Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and found them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 33 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51947(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted the motion dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its burden to show that its decision to take out a loan from a private bank to finance the replacement of windows in the cooperative building, rather than to [444] seek a public loan, was a good faith business judgment which did not involve any self-dealing (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [1990]; Simpson v Berkley Owner’s Corp., 213 AD2d 207 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant showed that it decided not to apply for the public loan because a condition thereof was that defendant would be obligated to remain in the Mitchell-Lama program for another 15 years. Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and found them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 33 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51947(U).]

Cannings v. East Midtown Plaza Housing Co., 104 A.D.3d 443, 960 N.Y.S.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

104 A.D.3d 443 (Cannings v. East Midtown Plaza Housing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related