2018 NY Slip Op 51958

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 51958
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Source verification: cross_accepted_sealed
Original Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_51958.htm ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,755 chars

LLC's pool installer is "experienced" and "highly respected" and that the installation would
adhere to the "highest safety standards" (amended 2017 complaint, ¶ 56), does not render
Stable's decision unreasonable.

Clearly, even a good installer is no guarantee against a potential accident which could arise
from human error, product defects, and improper and inadequate maintenance over the life of the
pool and its auxiliary parts, which could result in a flood of the Apartment and other units. The
Board, in deciding what is reasonable, has a duty to consider the best interests of the shareholders
as a whole, including any financial or other burden that might befall them should the pool
overflow or leak, especially in a small building, where the risks have to be absorbed by a limited
group of individuals. It is therefore questionable whether Dogwood LLC could prevail on a claim
that the denial of consent to a pool was unreasonable.

Regardless of whether the Board's decision regarding the pool was reasonable and plaintiffs
sufficiently pleaded such a claim, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended 2017 complaint's
fourth cause of action is granted. This cause of action, as demonstrated by the amended
complaint's allegations, is premature, since plaintiff's concede that the review conducted by
Spitzer was merely preliminary, leading to Peterson's October 7, 2015 letter to defendants'
counsel, which referenced and attached Spitzer's September 22, 2015 letter. See
Amended 2017 complaint, ¶ 57. The amended complaint wholly fails to explain why the
review was preliminary and, although Spitzer's letter explains why it was, including because
Dogwood LLC's architect acknowledged that the plans provided to Stable were incomplete, and