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.
Cyrille ALLANNIC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Paul LEVIN, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 25, 2008, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, declared that the March 13, 2006 vote of the board of directors of defendant 682 Sixth Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation (the “co-op”) to extend the master lease to defendant 682 Sixth Avenue, LLC is valid, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, defendants' cross motion denied, the judgment vacated and the complaint reinstated, with costs in favor of plaintiffs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 2008, which, upon granting plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The business judgment rule does not foreclose inquiry into the disinterested independence of those members of the board chosen to make the corporate decision on its behalf (Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 631, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994 [1979] ). The rule shields such directors only if they possess a disinterested independence and do not have dual relations that prevent an unprejudicial exercise of judgment (id.; In re Comverse Technology, Inc., 56 A.D.3d 49, 866 N.Y.S.2d 10, 18 [2008] ). The defendant housing cooperative board members were not disinterested members when they voted to enter into a lease extension of a master lease pursuant to which all of the shareholders would not be treated fairly and evenly. As such there are questions of fact regarding whether the board engaged in self-dealing and whether its failure to treat all shareholders fairly and evenly constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duties (see Schwartz v. Marien, 37 N.Y.2d 487, 491-492, 373 N.Y.S.2d 122, 335 N.E.2d 334 [1975]; Aronson v. Crane, 145 A.D.2d 455, 456, 535 N.Y.S.2d 417 [1988]; Demas v. 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 A.D.2d 476, 478, 511 N.Y.S.2d 621 [1987] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 30, 2008
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)