13315 Owners Corp. v. Kennedy, 4 Misc. 3d 931 (2004)

Citation: 13315 Owners Corp. v. Kennedy, 4 Misc. 3d 931 (2004)
Parent Document: 13315 Owners Corp. v. Kennedy, 4 Misc. 3d 931 (2004)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2004-06-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6305035/13315-owners-corp-v-kennedy/ ↗

Full Text

1,114 chars

The Court of Appeals interpreted Levandusky, as discussed above, to mean that “[i]n the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination . . . .” (Pullman, 100 NY2d at 153.) The Court of Appeals recognized in Pullman “that a cooperative board’s broad powers could lead to abuse” that requires courts to “exercise a heightened vigilance in examining . . . the board’s action.” (Id. at 153-154, 158.) Although the Court’s multiple references to cooperative boards might mean *940that the Court intended the business judgment rule to apply to a board vote, these references, all dicta, have no binding precedential value. (See e.g. Beneficial Natl. Bank v Anderson, 539 US 1, 17 [2003] [Scalia, J., dissenting] [“Dicta . . . have no precedential value . . .”]; Mayorga v Tate, 302 AD2d 11, 12 [2d Dept 2002] [“(D)icta are not binding as a matter of law . . .”].) What a court says is less important than what a court does, and what the Pullman court did was apply the business judgment rule to a shareholder vote, not a board vote.

Other Sections in This Document (76)

Full Text