Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Evelyn KONRAD, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Shareholders and in the Right of 136 East 64th Street Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The 136 EAST 64TH STREET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Evelyn KONRAD, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Shareholders and in the Right of 136 East 64th Street Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The 136 EAST 64TH STREET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered October 14, 1997, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of defendants' liability, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 31, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
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., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 538, 554 N.Y.S.2d 807, 553 N.E.2d 1317; Katz v. 215 West 91st Street Corp., 215 A.D.2d 265, 266, 626 N.Y.S.2d 796).
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, 581 N.Y.S.2d 793).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)