NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 30, 2008
CYRILLE ALLANNIC, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
PAUL LEVIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 25, 2008, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, declared that the March 13, 2006 vote of the board of directors of defendant 682 Sixth Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation (the "co-op") to extend the master lease to defendant 682 Sixth Avenue, LLC is valid, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, defendants' cross motion denied, the judgment vacated and the complaint reinstated, with costs in favor of plaintiffs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 2008, which, upon granting plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire, Acosta, JJ.
The business judgment rule does not foreclose inquiry into the disinterested independence of those members of the board chosen to make the corporate decision on its behalf (Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 631 ). The rule shields such directors only if they possess a disinterested independence and do not have dual relations that prevent an unprejudicial exercise of judgment (id.; In re Comverse Technology, Inc., 56 AD3d 49, 866 NYS2d 10, 18 ). The defendant housing cooperative board members were not disinterested members when they voted to enter into a lease extension of a master lease pursuant to which all of the shareholders would not be treated fairly and evenly. As such there are questions of fact regarding whether the board engaged in self-dealing and whether its failure to treat all shareholders fairly and evenly constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duties (see Schwartz v Marien, 37 NY2d 487, 491-492 ; Aronson v Crane, 145 AD2d 455, 456 ; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 AD2d 476, 478 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.