set forth factors in New York

2013In Aronson v Lewis ( 473 A2d 805 [Del 1984], overruled in part on other grounds by Brehm v Eisner, 746 A2d 244 [Del 2000]), the court set forth a test concerning whether alleged improper actions on the part of the directors would make a shareholder demand prior to instituting litigation futile.

2013In such cases, demand is excused if the derivative complaint pleads particularized facts creating a reasonable doubt that “(1) the directors are disinterested and independent [or] (2) the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.” (Id. at 814.) Where the derivative lawsuit does not assert a particular action by the board of directors, the test was stated in Rales v Blasband ( 634 A2d 927 [Del 1993]).

2013In Aronson v Lewis ( 473 A2d 805 [Del 1984], overruled in part on other grounds by Brehm v Eisner, 746 A2d 244 [Del 2000]), the court set forth a test concerning whether alleged improper actions on the part of the directors would make a shareholder demand prior to instituting litigation futile.

1993That determination is amply supported by the record (see, Wells v Wells, 151 AD2d 474 ).

1989The cases following H.O.M.E.S., such as Jackson and Webster Assocs. (supra), provide additional guidance in the meaning of "hard look”.

1988The court set forth the rule that when the retention of an employee may involve a risk of bodily harm to others, the discretion of the government is limited and superseded by the duty to abate the risk of dangers to others (supra, 296 NY, at 106 ).

1985In Williams v City of New York ( 214 NY 259, 263-264 ), the court set forth the rule in snow and ice cases as follows: “In order to render a municipality liable in this class of cases the interference with travel must be, “(1) Dangerous, “(2) Unusual or exceptional; that is to say different in character from conditions ordinarily and generally brought about by the winter weather prevalent in the given locality.” In Mazanti v Wright’s Underwear Co. ( 266 App Div 18, 21 ), the court, referring to Pomfrey (supra), stated, “much of it, however, applies equally in cases against property owners”, in

1985However, in a fairly recent case, De Coufle v Frederick Benedict, Inc. ( 93 AD2d 805, 806 ), decided in the Second Department, Appellate Division, the court held, “Defendant argues that the court erred in failing to charge that liability could be imposed upon it only if the condition of the premises constituted an exceptional danger or was more hazardous than conditions prevailing in the surrounding neighborhood.

1985In Williams v City of New York ( 214 NY 259, 263-264 ), the court set forth the rule in snow and ice cases as follows: “In order to render a municipality liable in this class of cases the interference with travel must be, “(1) Dangerous, “(2) Unusual or exceptional; that is to say different in character from conditions ordinarily and generally brought about by the winter weather prevalent in the given locality.” In Mazanti v Wright’s Underwear Co. ( 266 App Div 18, 21 ), the court, referring to Pomfrey (supra), stated, “much of it, however, applies equally in cases against property owners”, in

1985In Williams v City of New York ( 214 NY 259, 263-264 ), the court set forth the rule in snow and ice cases as follows: “In order to render a municipality liable in this class of cases the interference with travel must be, “(1) Dangerous, “(2) Unusual or exceptional; that is to say different in character from conditions ordinarily and generally brought about by the winter weather prevalent in the given locality.” In Mazanti v Wright’s Underwear Co. ( 266 App Div 18, 21 ), the court, referring to Pomfrey (supra), stated, “much of it, however, applies equally in cases against property owners”, in

1981(Supra, at p 694.) In the recent case of Corsentino v Corsentino ( 67 AD2d 798 ), which neither party cites, this court set forth the factors to be considered on a motion for modification based upon a change in circumstances.

1981Generally however the classification inures to their benefit and is sustained on the theory that it is not irrational for the State to conclude that the aged and disabled are least able *** to bear the hardships of an inadequate standard of living’ (Jefferson v Hackney, 406 US 535, 549 ).

1980In the recent decision, Mandel v Pitowsky ( 102 Misc 2d 478, 479 , affd 76 AD2d 807 ), the court set forth the principle that a multiple dwelling registration number was a prerequisite to maintaining a summary proceeding where a de facto multiple dwelling exists, i.e., where the landlord “was aware of and expressly condoned and encouraged the conversion to residential use, and that tenants entered into possession with the expectation and the assurance that the landlord would take the necessary steps to legalize the occupancy”.

1980In the recent decision, Mandel v Pitowsky ( 102 Misc 2d 478, 479 , affd 76 AD2d 807 ), the court set forth the principle that a multiple dwelling registration number was a prerequisite to maintaining a summary proceeding where a de facto multiple dwelling exists, i.e., where the landlord “was aware of and expressly condoned and encouraged the conversion to residential use, and that tenants entered into possession with the expectation and the assurance that the landlord would take the necessary steps to legalize the occupancy”.