You are here: / / COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF...
,

COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.

The Second Department determined the cooperative board’s parking restriction was a proper exercise of the business judgment rule (and did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty):

“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 defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that the decision to enforce parking rules and prohibit parking in the grass area behind one of the cooperative buildings was protected by the business judgment rule … . In particular, the defendants demonstrated that they were acting in the best interests of the cooperative after making a number of capital improvements that added to the aesthetics and value of the property. Beach Point Partners v Beachcomber, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07284, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

COOPERATIVES (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVES, COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
Vehicle Owner’s Uncontradicted Deposition Testimony Not Enough to Overcome Presumption Vehicle Driven with Owner’s Consent
WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THREE OF THE CHILDREN BY THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTHER AND YELLING AT MOTHER WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Law Explained Re: Suit Against Municipality and Police Officers Alleging Excessive Force
Evidence Defendant Had Victimized Other Children Justified Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AMBIGUOUS TERMS IN CONTRACT NOT CLARIFIED BY PAROL EVIDENCE, TRIABLE ISSUES... COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING...