56 East 87TH Units Corp. v. Kingsland Group, Inc., 8681.
| Decision Date | 06 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | 8681A.,8681. |
| Citation | 815 N.Y.S.2d 576,30 A.D.3d 1134,2006 NY Slip Op 04357 |
| Parties | 56 EAST 87TH UNITS CORP., Respondent, v. KINGSLAND GROUP, INC., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And Another Action.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff's president lacked authority to enter into the instant loan transaction with the Kingsland and lenders defendants on plaintiff's behalf. The bylaws, and plaintiff's own past practice, make it clear that the president required board authorization to enter into such transactions. There was no such authorization for this transaction. Nor was the president cloaked in apparent authority. It is axiomatic that apparent authority must be based on the actions or statements of the principal (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]). These defendants could point to no act or word of the plaintiff that might have conferred such authority. Rather, they rely on past dealings with the president in his capacity as principal for his own business entities, which were unrelated to plaintiff. We need not consider defendants' contention that plaintiff ratified the transaction, because it is raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to reach this argument, we would reject it. Given that plaintiff promptly objected once it learned of the transaction, and never received the loan proceeds, which were diverted by the president to his wife's corporation, plaintiff cannot be held to have ratified the transaction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiPizio Constr. Co. v. Erie Canal Harbor Dev. Corp.
...of the Board (see Hellman v. Hellman, 60 A.D.3d 1468, 1468–1469, 876 N.Y.S.2d 298 ; see also 56 E. 87th Units Corp. v. Kingsland Group, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 1134, 1134–1135, 815 N.Y.S.2d 576 ; Saleh v. Saleh, 239 A.D.2d 165, 167, 657 N.Y.S.2d 52 ). We thus conclude that the order in appeal No. 3......
-
Stang LLC v. Hudson Square Hotel, LLC
...into the transaction contained in the Written Consent. Plaintiffs' reliance on 1230 Park Associates and 56 E. 87th Units Corp. v. Kingsland Group, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 1134 (1st Dept 2006) is unavailing. In 1230 Park Associates, the First Department found that an individual does not have the aut......
-
Hellman v. Hellman
...provision in the by-laws exists. For example, in one of the cases cited by the Appellate Division, 56 East 87th Units Corp. v. Kingsland Group, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 1134, 815 N.Y.S.2d 576 (1st Dept.2006), the court found that the corporate president “lacked authority” to take out the loan in que......
-
Marshall v. Marshall
...N.Y.S.2d 737). "[A]pparent authority must be based on the actions or statements of the principal" ( 56 E. 87th Units Corp. v. Kingsland Group, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 815 N.Y.S.2d 576), and "[t]he agent cannot by his [or her] own acts imbue himself [or herself] with apparent authority" ......