You are here: / / Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell...

Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His Shares in the Cooperative Was Not Tainted by Discriminatory Considerations—Denial Protected by the Business Judgment Rule

The Second Department determined the board of a cooperative dwelling acted within the scope of its authority (pursuant to the business judgment rule) when it denied plaintiff’s application to sell his shares in the cooperative to a specific buyer.  Although the board’s action would not be protected by the business judgment rule if it were tainted by discriminatory considerations, the court concluded there was no evidence discriminatory considerations played a role in the denial:

“In the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination [s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . ” [D]ecision making tainted by discriminatory considerations is not protected by the business judgment rule'” … .

Here, the cooperative demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that its denial of the resale application was protected by the business judgment rule … . In particular, the cooperative demonstrated that its denial of the resale application was authorized, and done in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the cooperative, in light of significant debt the prospective buyer held relating to a separate property. The evidence the plaintiff submitted in opposition to this showing was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the resale application was actually denied for a discriminatory reason, or any other reason not protected by the business judgment rule. Griffin v Sherwood Vil., Co-op “C”, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06112, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

You might also like
Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled
Supreme Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction In an Action Seeking Compensation for an Alleged Unconstitutional Taking of Land Based Upon the Denial of a Subdivision Application—the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction
Although Not the Case Here, the Court Explained How a Collision Between a Vehicle Entering the Roadway and a Vehicle Which Is In the Roadway (and Has the Right-of-Way) Can Possibly Have Two Proximate Causes
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY CLAIM SHOULD BE PROCESSED IS ARBITRABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the... Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written Contract...