THE DOCKET / BAD FAITH AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT
What the board is said to have done
Treated a shareholder differently from others in the building, in concert with the managing company and three individual board members.
A tribunal rejected this claim.
Levy v. 103-25 68th Avenue Owners, Inc. · 2024 NY Slip Op 00185 (2d Dept 2024) · Sup Ct Queens County · Index 709388/2018
No court has decided whether this conduct occurred. This decision resolved a procedural question. Nothing here is a finding that anyone did anything.
Outcome
Board prevailed
Filed
2018-06-18
Last decision
2024-01-17
Elapsed
8.1 yrs · open
Brought by
unit owner
Posture
motion to dismiss
What the court held
A cooperative board is entitled to business judgment rule deference so long as it acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority, and in good faith -- and the rule does not apply where a board acts outside its authority or violates its own governing documents. But conclusory allegations of bad faith or discriminatory motive, without factual basis, will not survive a motion to dismiss even where evidentiary material is submitted.
“the plaintiffs made only conclusory allegations, without any factual basis, that the co-op defendants acted in bad faith or with a discriminatory motive”
2024 NY Slip Op 00185 at *3
Outcome in full
The cooperative defendants prevailed outright. The Second Department REVERSED the denial of dismissal and granted dismissal of the second and ninth causes of action against the co-op, its management company and three individual board members, with one bill of costs to them. The appeal from the denial of sanctions against the plaintiffs was dismissed as abandoned. Claims of familial-status discrimination and bad faith were dismissed as conclusory; the ninth cause of action was dismissed as duplicative.
The harm continued while the case ran
The shareholders had already moved out of the apartment and sold their cooperative shares BEFORE commencing this action. No outcome available in this litigation could restore what they had lost; the case could only ever have produced money. It has now run more than eight years.
What it cost
Not disclosed. No decision in this case states a figure, and we publish no estimate. Why costs are mostly blank.
What would have prevented this
The board attempted a FORMAL MEDIATION of the underlying noise dispute before voting to terminate the lease -- voluntarily, because New York requires nothing of the kind (issue 48). It failed, and the dispute went to eviction and then to eight years of litigation. A standing mediation or ombudsperson channel with authority to bind, rather than an ad hoc attempt by one board, is the mechanism this record argues for. Note also what the pleading standard demands: an owner alleging discriminatory motive must plead facts, which generally means access to what the board actually said and did -- the same records an owner has no reliable right to obtain.
Sources
Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.