Opinion
17173 Index No. 161789/19 Case No. 2022–01313
01-24-2023
RIVERCROSS TENANTS’ CORP., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kathleen KOVACH, Defendant–Appellant.
Grimble & LoGuidice, LLP, New York (Robert Grimble of counsel), for appellant. Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), for respondent.
Grimble & LoGuidice, LLP, New York (Robert Grimble of counsel), for appellant.
Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Gonza´lez, Mendez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James D'Auguste, J.), entered October 14, 2021, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for ejectment and to dismiss defendant's affirmative defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly granted plaintiff summary judgment on its ejectment cause of action, as plaintiff's decision to terminate defendant's proprietary lease for her objectionable conduct of constantly harassing her neighbors was protected by the business judgment rule (see 40 West 67th Street Corp. v. Pullman, 100 N.Y.2d 147, 153–154, 760 N.Y.S.2d 745, 790 N.E.2d 1174 [2003] ; 1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus, 39 A.D.3d 379, 382–383, 835 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 807, 843 N.Y.S.2d 536, 875 N.E.2d 29 [2007] ). There is no indication that plaintiff acted outside the scope of its authority or other than for the purposes of the cooperative, and its determination was made in compliance with the required procedure set forth in the lease (see Trump Plaza Owners, Inc. v. Weitzner, 61 A.D.3d 480, 480, 877 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept. 2009] ). While defendant contends that the termination of her tenancy was in retaliation for her own complaints against her neighbors and her requests for a disability accommodation, she offers no evidentiary support for this claim aside from speculative statements in her affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion. Thus, there is no indication of bad faith warranting closer review of plaintiff's determination. Nor did defendant refute any of the allegations of objectionable conduct such that a triable issue of fact is raised.
Defendant's affirmative defenses were correctly dismissed in the absence of any evidence submitted by defendant to demonstrate their merits ( CPLR 3211[b] ).