Matter of Cannings v East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co., Inc.

Matter of Cannings v East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 01478 Decided on March 7, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department 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.

Decided on March 7, 2013
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Freedman, Clark, JJ.
9459 401071/10

[*1]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.

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 NY2d 530 [1990]; Simpson v Berkley Owner's Corp., 213 AD2d 207 [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.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 7, 2013

CLERK