You are here: / / PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS...
, , ,

PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined individual condominium board members could be liable under the business judgment rule for unequal treatment of shareholders with respect to the assessment of common charges:

“The business judgment rule is applicable to the board of directors of cooperative and condominium corporations” … . The rule provides that “a court should defer to a [condominium] board’s determination ‘[s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the [condominium], within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . Unequal treatment of shareholders is sufficient to overcome the directors’ insulation from liability under the business judgment rule … , and a director who participates in the commission of a tort committed by the board may be held individually liable … .

Here, the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants. The complaint also sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in fraud against the individual defendants to the extent that the plaintiff seeks damages for the overassessment of common charges … . 72 Poplar Townhouse, LLC v Board of Mgrs. of the 72 Poplar St. Condominium, 2024 NY Slip Op 00606, Second Dept 2-7-24

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against individual condominium board members for unequal treatment of shareholders in the assessment of common charges.

 

You might also like
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED.
A FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DOES NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DOES NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injuries in Labor Law 240(1) Action
Written Notice Prerequisite to Suit Against County Did Not Apply to Plaintiff’s Being Struck by a Traffic Signal Cable While Walking on a Sidewalk
Question of Fact Whether Encroaching Hedge Was De Minimus Encroachment Re: Adverse Possession
DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE DID NOT PRONOUNCE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM OF PROBATION, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO EXPRESSED SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT BEING ABLE... THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WAS VALID...