Domingo v. C. True Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Domingo v. C. True Building Corp.

246 A.D.2d 337, 666 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 337 (Domingo v. C. True Building Corp.) 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

Domingo v. C. True Building Corp., 246 A.D.2d 337, 666 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 4, 1996, which denied plaintiff tenant/shareholder’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendant residential cooperative association’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that defendant’s board of directors acted in bad faith such as to render the business judgment rule inapplicable to its decision to renovate (see, Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538), and the documentary evidence conclusively shows that the renovation plans for the building were legally adopted by the shareholders in accordance with defendant’s governing rules. Furthermore, we find no evidence of self-dealing on the part of any member of the board. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 4, 1996, which denied plaintiff tenant/shareholder’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendant residential cooperative association’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that defendant’s board of directors acted in bad faith such as to render the business judgment rule inapplicable to its decision to renovate (see, Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538), and the documentary evidence conclusively shows that the renovation plans for the building were legally adopted by the shareholders in accordance with defendant’s governing rules. Furthermore, we find no evidence of self-dealing on the part of any member of the board. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 337, 666 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domingo-v-c-true-building-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack