Levine v. Greene, 57 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Levine v. Greene, 57 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests… at p. 628 ✓
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wong v. Board of Mgrs. of One Sunset Park Condominium
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2024 · confidence medium
Dept 1987]; Levine v Greene, . . . 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2d Dept 2008]). ''A violation of bylaws is akin to a breach of contract" (Pasqual v Rustic Woods Homeow,zers Ass 'n.
cited Cited as authority (rule) St. Denis v. Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Assn., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Inc. v Graves, 135 AD3d 1228, 1230 [2016]; Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Association, Inc. v. Kapsokefalos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as plaintiff supported its motion *1269 for summary judgment with proof that the fees were “authorized, made in good faith, and in furtherance of [plaintiff’s] legitimate interests” (Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]), defendants were required to come forward with proof in admissible form “sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 40-50 Brighton First Road Apartments Corp. v. Kosolapov
N.Y. App. Term. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, it must first be determined whether the cooperative’s action “was authorized, made in good faith, and in furtherance of the [cooperative’s] legitimate interests,” and then whether the tenants “raise [d] a triable issue of fact with respect to fraud, self-dealing, or other misconduct by the [cooperative] which would trigger further judicial inquiry” (Walden Woods Homeowners’ Assn. v Friedman, 36 AD3d 691, 692 [2007]; see also Oakwood On The Sound, Inc. v David, 63 AD3d 893, 894 [2009]; Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]; Martino v Board of Mgrs. of Heron Pointe …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. Denis v. Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In his brief, petitioner acknowledges that he has now also withdrawn his fourth claim. . “[A]bsent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” (Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. Denis v. Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In his brief, petitioner acknowledges that he has now also withdrawn his fourth claim. . “[A]bsent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” (Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave.
discussed Cited "see" Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
In reviewing the Board’s actions, “ ‘absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the condominium’ ” (Skouras v Victoria Hall Condominium, 73 AD3d 902, 903 [2010], quoting Schoninger v Yardarm Beach Homeowners’ Assn., 134 AD2d 1, 10 [1987]; see Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
In reviewing the Board’s actions, “ ‘absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the condominium’ ” (Skouras v Victoria Hall Condominium, 73 AD3d 902, 903 [2010], quoting Schoninger v Yardarm Beach Homeowners’ Assn., 134 AD2d 1, 10 [1987]; see Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Skouras v. Victoria Hall Condominium
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
In reviewing the board’s exercise of its rule-making authority, “absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the condominium” (Schoninger v Yardarm Beach Homeowners’ Assn., 134 AD2d 1, 10 [1987]; see Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Strathmore Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Mendicino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
“So long as the board acts for the purposes of the [Association], within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for the board’s” (id. at 538; see Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627 [2008]; Gillman v Pebble Cove Home Owners Assn., 154 AD2d 508 [1989]).
cited Cited "see" Oakwood On The Sound, Inc. v. David
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538 [1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Levine v Greene, 57 AD3d 627, 628 [2008]; Hochman v 35 Park W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martin Levine
v.
Richard J. Greene
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 9, 2008.
57 A.D.3d 627
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

[*628] The plaintiff is the president of the Board of Managers of Harbor View at Port Washington Condominium (hereinafter the Condominium). The apartment owners within the Condominium are class B members of the defendant Harbor View at Port Washington Home Owners Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association). The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the 2006 budget passed by the Association’s board of directors (hereinafter the Board) is invalid. The Association owns all of the common elements within the Harbor View community. The defendants, consisting of the Association and the member of the Board who voted in favor of the budget, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. Upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original determination.

In reviewing the reasonableness of the Association’s exercise of its authority, “absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” (Gillman v Pebble Cove Home Owners Assn., 154 AD2d 508, 508-509 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [1990]; Captain’s Walk Homeowners Assn, v Penney, 17 AD3d 617, 618 [2005]). In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the Board’s adoption of the 2006 budget was authorized, made in good faith, and in furtherance of the Association’s legitimate interests (see 40 W 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 [2003]; Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [1990]; Captain’s Walk Homeowners Assn. v Penney, 17 AD3d at 618; LoRusso v Brookside Homeowner’s Assn., Inc., 17 AD3d 323 [2005]; Schoninger v Yardarm Beach Homeowners’ Assn., [*629] 134 AD2d 1, 10 [1987]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the Board’s exercise of authority, or his claims of fraud, self-dealing, or other misconduct by the individual defendants which would trigger further judicial inquiry (see 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 [2003]; Walden Woods Homeowners’ Assn. v Friedman, 36 AD3d 691 [2007]; Martino v Board of Mgrs. of Heron Pointe on Beach Condominium, 6 AD3d 505 [2004]). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants. Moreover, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination.

Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the 2006 budget passed by the Board is valid (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.