The other reason posited by defendant for its failure to repair plaintiffs' unit is its fear of litigation. Obviously, its failure to make the repairs has resulted in litigation as well, and has not obviated defendant's contractual responsibilities. In addition, defendant's alleged good faith [*8]efforts are not only insufficient to relieve it of its duty, but the testimony of its own directors and agents fails to substantiate a claim of good faith, wherein defendant made the conscious decision not to repair the unit.
That portion of defendant's cross-motion seeking a declaration on its third counterclaim that its actions are protected by the business judgment rule is denied.
Generally, the business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into the decisions of the board of a cooperative corporation that relate to the enforcement of a matter of building policy against a tenant shareholder, as long as the board acts within the scope of its authority, in furtherance of the cooperative's purposes, and in good faith. Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 NY2d 530 (1990). However, the business judgment rule will not protect a cooperative board from liability for its own breach of contract. Anderson v Nottingham Village Homeowner's Association, Inc., 37 AD3d 1195, 1197 (4th Dept 2007) ("the business judgment rule does not protect defendant from liability for its alleged breach of contract").