to be construed in accordance with the parties intent; and (2) the best evidence of what the parties
intend is what they provide in their writing. Greenfield v. Phillies Records, 98 NY2d 562
(2002); Van Kipnis v. Van Kipnis,
43 AD3d 71 (1st Dept. 2007). A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous
on its face, must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.
Decisions made by the board of managers of a residential condominium are reviewed
according to the business judgment rule (Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt.
Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [1990]). Accordingly, courts must defer to good faith decisions made by
a board of managers. Id. "To trigger further judicial scrutiny, an aggrieved [unit owner]
must make a showing [*4]that the board acted (1) outside the
scope of its authority, (2) in a way that did not legitimately further the corporate purpose or (3) in
bad faith " (Pelton v. 77 Park Ave.
Condominium, 38 AD3d 1, 8-9 [2006] [internal citations omitted]).
Here, plaintiff has failed to make a showing of any of the three elements that would trigger
judicial scrutiny of the defendant's actions. Rather, the evidence shows that the defendant
arranged for repairs of plaintiff's apartment and paid the contractor appropriately from the funds
provided by the insurance proceeds. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the alleged
delays in effecting these repairs were the result of bad faith on the defendant's part in executing
their obligations under the bylaws. The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the
defendant's, since the record shows that the defendant acted for the purposes of the
condominium, within the scope of its authority and in good faith. See i.e. Schoninger v.