You are here: / / WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD...
, , ,

WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN BE SUED BY A SHAREHOLDER FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT APART FROM A SUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the board of directors of a residential cooperative is not amenable to a lawsuit separate and apart from a suit against the cooperative. Here plaintiff shareholder sued the board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty after the dismissal of a similar suit against the directors individually:

New York trial courts have explicitly held that a board of directors is not an entity that may be sued separately from the corporation … . * * *

Applying the Business Corporation Law … , the residential cooperative board of defendant … is not an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued separate and apart from the corporation on whose behalf it acts. * * *

While a shareholder cannot assert allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against a board of directors, a shareholder may assert the claim against the individual directors … . Here, plaintiff originally brought breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against fourteen of the individual board members and the corporation … . Those causes of action were largely dismissed, and plaintiff may not simply replace those parties with “the board” to revive those now dismissed claims. Tahari v 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: This opinion clarifies the law. The board of directors of a corporation is not amenable to suit for breach of a fiduciary duty separate and apart from a suit against the corporation. However, individual members of the board of directors may be sued for breach of a fiduciary duty.

 

You might also like
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROSECUTION’S REASONS FOR EXCLUDING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR WERE PRETEXTUAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless Facility Was Foreseeable
THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT... CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSES OF CLAIMANT’S HEARING LOSS DID NOT...