In opposition to defendant's cross-motion, Goldstone asserts that there is no basis in law for granting that branch of the cross motion seeking declaratory relief. Plaintiffs state that this is especially true since defendant has failed to provide any scope of work or construction plans to indicate that it is planning to make any repairs as required by the Proprietary Lease. Plaintiffs also state that no member of defendant's board of directors, no architect, no consultant and/or no managing [*6]agent has entered their unit since 2006 and, since 2006, the damage in the unit has been exacerbated by new leaks.
In addition to the foregoing, plaintiffs reassert their position appearing in their motion and reply papers.
In reply to plaintiffs' opposition to its cross-motion, defendant reiterates its position that its actions are protected by the business judgment rule. Moreover, defendant states that the causes of action based on libel must be dismissed because plaintiffs have failed to show any publication of any alleged libel.