Razzano v Woodstock Owners Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Razzano v Woodstock Owners Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 32628(U) October 5, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 111966/2009 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ANNEDON I011712012 [* 1] MOTION SEQ. NO. WOODSTOCK OW OF DIRECTORS OF CORP., jointly and severall CORP., and APRIL ANDERSON, Defendants. rng papers, numbered Ito 5, were read on th cross-motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment. motion by the defendants to dismiss and to Show Cause -Affidavits I Woodst se involving a dispute over the sublet rig ers Corp., the Board o to CPLR 321 1(a)(l) and r summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, on her complaint. BACKGROUND is a shareholder of a cooperative apartment located at 320 East 42 ldStreet, Unit 2009, New York, New York Before purchasing the apartment, on March 19, 2007, plaintiff met with April Anderson (Anderson), co-president of Woodstock Owners Corp., for a board interview. Plaintiff maintains that, at the meeting, she discussed with Anderson the cooperative s no-sublet policy Plaintiff alleges that she informed Anderson that there was a possibility that she may need to sublet her apartment due to a temporary relocation for work. Page 1 of 6 [* 2] ntrff decided to e request to sublet ff filed a verified c tiff also seeks relief in the o purchased units after October of 2002. Plaintiff contends that, because her t was rejected, she had to put her apartment up for sale ts now move to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 321 1(a)(l) and (7), based upon documentary evidence, and for failing to state a valid cause of action, or alternatively, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment, pursua Page 2 of 6 [* 3] [2002]; see Lean v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [I9941 legally cognizable cause o 21 1(a)(l), in order to a matter of law (Goshen v Mut. Life /m., AD3d 350, 350 [ I s t Dept 20081 [holding that it was proper for the complaint to be 52 dismissed because the documentary evidence refuted the plaintiff s allegations for breach of contract]) Page 3 of 6 [* 4] cooperative The le then by the Lessees owning at least t ndment had been d for certain situations Regardless, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that [wlhere a written umentary evidence warranting the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 1(a)(l), regardless of any extrinsic evidence or self-serving allegations offered by the proponent of the claim (150 Broadway N. Y. Assoc., L.P. v Bocfmr, 14 AD3d 1, 5 [I st Dept 20043). Here, despite plaintiff s assertions, t h e submitted documents clearly indicate that plaintiff was aware of, and acknowledged, that the cooperative Page 4 of 6 [* 5] While plaintiff also co shareholders, pursuant to section 5 endants submit a copy ch was distribute . The documents specific because the owner occupancy rate of the cooperative was low, and the building was run down, the decision to and in need of several repairs T g in an effort to increase the ow upant percentage rate, and to assist in ment rule, which discusses the role of dants also contend that actions of corpor the dismissal of this action. The cooperative, within udgment for the authority and in good of Levaridiisky v Or) . , 75 NY2d 530, 538 [1990]). dent challenging the board's acti not available" (id.). F to demonstrate a breach of this du e Division, First Department, ha while a board may not delibera uals for harmful treatment, if a board of directors becomes aware of a situation or conduct of a particular shareholder that it considers contrary to the interests of the cooperative generally, there is no prohibition against the board's adoption of a policy protective of those broader interests, even if the policy is responsive to a single shareholder's situation or conduct (Bregman v 1 I 1 T e n m t s Corp.,97 AD3d 75, 84 [I Dept 201 21 [internal citation omitted]). st Here, the cooperative board's sublet policy was instituted because of the legitimate concern and interest of the welfare of the cooperative. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the board deliberately singled her out for harmful treatment, discriminated against her, or that the decision of the board was based upon fr , self-dealing, or was unconscionable Page 5 of 6 (see [* 6] rlbirider v Board [the business judgment rul individuals for harmful treat plaintiff was aware of t h e cooperative s su gment form on Februa complaint, defendants motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 321 1(a)(l), must be granted Accordingly, it is hereby oard of Directors of RED that defenda dismissed in its of costs, and it IS further, n order granting summary judgment is directed to serve rk of t h e Court w ith Notice of Entr ter judgment This constitutes the -1 t Check if appropriate: DO NOT POST Page 6 of 6 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION n REFERENCE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
