| Acevedo v Town 'N Country Condominium, Section I, Bd. ofMgrs. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04295 [51 AD3d 603] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Luis R. Acevedo et al., Respondents, v Town 'N CountryCondominium, Section I, Board of Managers, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin T. Mulhearn, P.C., Orangeburg, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the defendantappeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, RocklandCounty (Nelson, J.), dated December 5, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiffs, unit owners of a condominium, alleged, inter alia, that the defendant, theboard of managers of the Town 'N Country Condominium, Section I, breached its fiduciary dutyin failing to obtain sufficient fire insurance. The defendant moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint arguing that, among other things, its actions were protected fromjudicial review pursuant to the business judgment rule.
The business judgment rule, which applies to condominium boards, prohibits judicial inquiryinto the actions of the board as long as the board acts for the purpose of the condominium, withinits authority and in good faith (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75NY2d 530, 538 [1990]; Schoninger v Yardarm Beach Homeowners' Assn., 134 AD2d 1,2 [1987]). The defendant met its prima facie burden by establishing that it acted in good faith,within its authority, and for the benefit of the condominium, when it retained an insurance brokerto procure insurance sufficient to cover full replacement of the buildings to the extent obtainable.In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the court shouldhave granted the defendant's motion for summary [*2]judgmentdismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563[1980]; Gershman v Habib, 37AD3d 530 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.