IN RE: James CANNINGS (2013)

IN RE: James CANNINGS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. EAST MIDTOWN PLAZA HOUSING COMPANY, INC., Defendant–Respondent.

Decided: March 07, 2013

ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, CLARK, JJ.

James Cannings, appellant pro se. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Michelle P. Quinn of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted the motion dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its burden to show that its decision to take out a loan from a private bank to finance the replacement of windows in the cooperative building, rather than to seek a public loan, was a good faith business judgment which did not involve any self-dealing (see Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 [1990]; Simpson v. Berkley Owner's Corp., 213 A.D.2d 207 [1st Dept 1995] ). Defendant showed that it decided not to apply for the public loan because a condition thereof was that defendant would be obligated to remain in the Mitchell–Lama program for another 15 years. Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and found them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network