From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).


Defendants' decisions concerning the manner and extent of repairs and renovations to the building were within the scope of their authority under the by-laws and proprietary lease of the cooperative, and were therefore shielded from judicial review by the business judgment rule, plaintiff having failed to substantiate her claims of fraudulent misrepresentations and other breaches of fiduciary duties ( see, Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 538; Katz v. 215 W. 91st St. Corp., 215 A.D.2d 265, 266).

Plaintiff did not present any new facts in her motion to renew, nor would her papers alter the result of the prior motion, such that the renewal request was properly denied ( see, Mangine v. Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476, 477).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corporation

Case Details

Full title:EVELYN KONRAD, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Shareholders and in the…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 15, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 629

Citing Cases

Real World Holdings, LLC v. Clark

Further, there is no merit to RWH's claims that board members engaged in corporate waste because they decided…

York Towers v. Braha

(Id. at 36). See Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp., 254 A.D. 2d 110, 110 [1st Dept 1998] ("Defendants'…