City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Dimon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Dimon

135 A.D.3d 566, 22 N.Y.S.3d 850

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 19, 2016·No. 16681 650294/12·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered January 16, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility based on defendants’ lack of disinterest or breach of the duty of loyalty (see Rales v Blasband, 634 A2d 927, 936 [Del 1993]). The complaint fails to allege particularized facts showing the substantial likelihood of defendants’ personal liability as a result of any intentional misconduct, that they consciously failed to implement any sort of risk monitoring system or that, having implemented such a system, they consciously disregarded red flags (see e.g. Security Police & Fire Professionals of Am. Retirement Fund v Mack, 93 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered January 16, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility based on defendants’ lack of disinterest or breach of the duty of loyalty (see Rales v Blasband, 634 A2d 927, 936 [Del 1993]). The complaint fails to allege particularized facts showing the substantial likelihood of defendants’ personal liability as a result of any intentional misconduct, that they consciously failed to implement any sort of risk monitoring system or that, having implemented such a system, they consciously disregarded red flags (see e.g. Security Police & Fire Professionals of Am. Retirement Fund v Mack, 93 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Dimon, 135 A.D.3d 566, 22 N.Y.S.3d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

135 A.D.3d 566 (City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Dimon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related