Opinion
2013-03-7
In re James CANNINGS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. EAST MIDTOWN PLAZA HOUSING COMPANY, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
James Cannings, appellant pro se. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Michelle P. Quinn of counsel), for respondent.
James Cannings, appellant pro se. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Michelle P. Quinn of counsel), for respondent.
ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly granted the motion dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its burden to show that its decision to take out a loan from a private bank to finance the replacement of windows in the cooperative building, rather than to seek a public loan, was a good faith business judgment which did not involve any self-dealing ( see Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 554 N.Y.S.2d 807, 553 N.E.2d 1317 [1990];Simpson v. Berkley Owner's Corp., 213 A.D.2d 207, 623 N.Y.S.2d 583 [1st Dept. 1995] ). Defendant showed that it decided not to apply for the public loan because a condition thereof was that defendant would be obligated to remain in the Mitchell–Lama program for another 15 years. Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and found them unavailing.