Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Sign Prohibition Constitutes Breach of Condo Board's Fiduciary Duty
Perlbinder v. Board of Managers Of the 411 East 53rd Street Condominium
NYLJ 10/1/09, p. 36, col. 2
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action by condominium sponsor's designee against the condominium board for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages arising out of the board's refusal to permit erection of a sign on the premises, sponsor's designee appealed from Supreme Court's denial of its summary judgment motion and grant of the board's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the declaration and bylaws permitted erection of the sign, and that the board's decision to prohibit the sign constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
When the subject building was converted to condominium ownership in 1986, partners in the sponsor acquired 16 unsold units. Pursuant to the condominium bylaws, sponsor designated a representative on the board, and that designee remains a member of the board. Six unsold units remain. In 2007, sponsor's designee advised the board of its intention to install a 24-inch by 30-inch sign on the building advertising the availability of one of the six remaining units for sale. The board asked for additional information, but rather than providing the information, designee installed the sign next to an existing sign placed on the building by the management company. The board ' without consulting designee, who was a board member ' directed removal of the sign. Designee complied, and then brought this action. Designee relied on a provision in the bylaws giving “The Sponsor or its designee” the right to erect signs on the exterior wall of the building. The board argued that this provision was inconsistent with the condominium declaration, which gave only the sponsor and its successors an easement for erection of signs. Supreme Court agreed, and awarded summary judgment to the board, relying on a bylaw providing that in the event of inconsistency between a bylaw and the declaration, the declaration should control. Sponsor's designee appealed.
In reversing, the Appellate Division concluded that the declaration and the bylaws were part of the same transaction and should be read together. The court harmonized the provisions by concluding that the declaration authorized the sponsor to post signs without precluding others, while the bylaw supplemented that provision by allowing the sponsor's designee to post signs. The court then turned to the damage claim advanced by the designee against the board for breach of fiduciary duty. The court rejected the board's reliance on the business judgment rule, noting that the rule does not protect a board whose actions have no legitimate relationship to the condominium's welfare, or a board that singles out individuals for harmful treatment. Here, the court emphasized that the board's refusal to permit the sign, while authorizing a similar sign by the management company, served no legitimate corporate purpose and singled out designee for unfavorable treatment. As a result, designee was entitled to summary judgment on liability and a hearing on damages.
Sign Prohibition Constitutes Breach of Condo Board's Fiduciary Duty
Perlbinder v. Board of Managers Of the 411 East 53rd Street Condominium
NYLJ 10/1/09, p. 36, col. 2
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action by condominium sponsor's designee against the condominium board for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages arising out of the board's refusal to permit erection of a sign on the premises, sponsor's designee appealed from Supreme Court's denial of its summary judgment motion and grant of the board's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the declaration and bylaws permitted erection of the sign, and that the board's decision to prohibit the sign constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
When the subject building was converted to condominium ownership in 1986, partners in the sponsor acquired 16 unsold units. Pursuant to the condominium bylaws, sponsor designated a representative on the board, and that designee remains a member of the board. Six unsold units remain. In 2007, sponsor's designee advised the board of its intention to install a 24-inch by 30-inch sign on the building advertising the availability of one of the six remaining units for sale. The board asked for additional information, but rather than providing the information, designee installed the sign next to an existing sign placed on the building by the management company. The board ' without consulting designee, who was a board member ' directed removal of the sign. Designee complied, and then brought this action. Designee relied on a provision in the bylaws giving “The Sponsor or its designee” the right to erect signs on the exterior wall of the building. The board argued that this provision was inconsistent with the condominium declaration, which gave only the sponsor and its successors an easement for erection of signs. Supreme Court agreed, and awarded summary judgment to the board, relying on a bylaw providing that in the event of inconsistency between a bylaw and the declaration, the declaration should control. Sponsor's designee appealed.
In reversing, the Appellate Division concluded that the declaration and the bylaws were part of the same transaction and should be read together. The court harmonized the provisions by concluding that the declaration authorized the sponsor to post signs without precluding others, while the bylaw supplemented that provision by allowing the sponsor's designee to post signs. The court then turned to the damage claim advanced by the designee against the board for breach of fiduciary duty. The court rejected the board's reliance on the business judgment rule, noting that the rule does not protect a board whose actions have no legitimate relationship to the condominium's welfare, or a board that singles out individuals for harmful treatment. Here, the court emphasized that the board's refusal to permit the sign, while authorizing a similar sign by the management company, served no legitimate corporate purpose and singled out designee for unfavorable treatment. As a result, designee was entitled to summary judgment on liability and a hearing on damages.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.