Pawling Lake Prop. Owners Assn. v McGoorty

[*1] Pawling Lake Prop. Owners Assn. v McGoorty 2005 NYSlipOp 50365(U) Decided on March 22, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 22, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: March 22, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-665 D C

Pawling Lake Property Owners Association, Respondent,

against

Edward McGoorty and Ida McGoorty, Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from three commercial claims judgments of the City Court, City of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (R. McGaw, J.), entered on October 11, 2002, following a consolidated non-jury trial of three actions, finding in favor of plaintiff and awarding it $1,960.16, $1,838.66 and $1,717.16 on the claims in the respective actions, including interest and statutory costs.

Judgments unanimously affirmed without costs.

Substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law, in these actions, tried jointly, to recover homeowner's assessments due (UCCA 1804-A, 1807-A). Plaintiff proved that it submitted bills for the
Pawling Lake Property Owners Association (Association) assessments at issue to defendants and that defendants retained these without paying them despite plaintiff's demands for payment. The determination of the court below to this effect was amply supported by the record, which includes defendant Edward McGoorty's own admission that he received and did not pay the subject invoices for Association dues. Notably, the defendants themselves aver that it was never their position "that they were not obligated to pay assessments to the corporation," but only that they were "assessed incorrectly and unfairly."

Within the limitations of the commercial claims context (see generally Briscoe v White, NYLJ, Feb. 14, 2004 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]), defendants' sole defense to plaintiff's claims, that plaintiff had no authority to make assessments because its bylaws are invalid, was [*2]without merit. Defendants' assertions that the Association bylaws amendments were obtained through improper voting procedures and/or fraud were conclusory in nature and based almost entirely on defendant Edward McGoorty's opinions as to how data pertaining to meeting attendance and the vote itself should be interpreted. This is not sufficient to raise an issue of fraud. Moreover, the court below properly found that the board's action in proposing a dues structure wherein
lots conjoined through proceedings at the town and county level were charged a single assessment and unimproved lots were charged half an assessment was "taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes" and was thus shielded by the business judgment rule (Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 538 [1990] quoting Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 629 [1979]). Defendants' contention that this measure was the product of self-dealing because a number of board members owned lots that would be affected by it was not supported by any evidence, beyond defendants' own speculation, that the proposal was made to further the board members' interests over those of the Association in breach of its fiduciary duty (see Levandusky, 75 NY2d at 539).

Defendants' contention that they were improperly denied a jury trial is without merit. The procedure to obtain a jury trial upon a commercial small claim is set forth in UCCA 1806-A, which provides that a party, other than the claimant, that desires a jury trial must file a demand for a jury trial, along with an "affidavit that there are issues of fact in the action requiring such a trial, specifying the same and stating that such a trial is desired and intended in good faith," prior to the date upon which the party is to answer or appear. An undertaking must also be posted. There is no evidence in the
record of defendants' compliance with these requirements (see generally Lehrman Kronick & Lehrman v Mancuso, 146 Misc 2d 837 [White Plains City Ct 1990]).
Decision Date: March 22, 2005