Regini v. Board of Managers of Loft Space Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Regini v. Board of Managers of Loft Space Condominium

125 A.D.3d 514, 1 N.Y.S.3d 805

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2015

Docket14274N 112994/11

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 514 (Regini v. Board of Managers of Loft Space Condominium) 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

Regini v. Board of Managers of Loft Space Condominium, 125 A.D.3d 514, 1 N.Y.S.3d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 1, 2013, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint asserting claims against defendant SDS Leonard, LLC, for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of warranty, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*515 To the extent it asserts a claim against defendant SDS Leonard for breach of warranty under the offering plan, the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit. Nor will defendant suffer any prejudice as a result of it. However, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is duplicative of the breach of warranty claim, since both are based on SDS’s alleged breach of its obligations under the offering plan, i.e., to repair and maintain the common elements of the building (see Mosaic Caribe, Ltd. v AllSettled Group, Inc., 117 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2014]). The breach of fiduciary duty claim is also otherwise palpably without merit, since, to the extent it purports to assert a fiduciary duty arising from something other than the terms of the offering plan, it fails to identify any other basis for finding such duty.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 1, 2013, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint asserting claims against defendant SDS Leonard, LLC, for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of warranty, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*515 To the extent it asserts a claim against defendant SDS Leonard for breach of warranty under the offering plan, the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit. Nor will defendant suffer any prejudice as a result of it. However, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is duplicative of the breach of warranty claim, since both are based on SDS’s alleged breach of its obligations under the offering plan, i.e., to repair and maintain the common elements of the building (see Mosaic Caribe, Ltd. v AllSettled Group, Inc., 117 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2014]). The breach of fiduciary duty claim is also otherwise palpably without merit, since, to the extent it purports to assert a fiduciary duty arising from something other than the terms of the offering plan, it fails to identify any other basis for finding such duty.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 514, 1 N.Y.S.3d 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regini-v-board-of-managers-of-loft-space-condominium-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack