Carroll v. Radoniqi
| Decision Date | 11 April 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02460,963 N.Y.S.2d 97,105 A.D.3d 493 |
| Parties | William CARROLL, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Mahir RADONIQI, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Danzig Fishman & Decea, White Plains (Thomas B. Decea of counsel), for appellant.
White Fleischner & Fino, LLP, New York (Gil M. Coogler of counsel), for Mahir Radoniqi, respondent.
Braverman & Associates, P.C., New York (Tracy Peterson of counsel), for The Charles House Condominium, respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 25, 2011, which granted defendant Charles House Condominium's motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim brought on behalf of the condominium, and denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 19, 2012, which, upon reargument of the condominium's motion, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 12, 2012, which granted defendant Mahir Radoniqi's motion for summary judgment dismissing the private nuisance cause of action against him, and denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The condominium made a prima facie showing that its board of directors' decisions and actions related to the allegations of misconduct on the part of its employee, Radoniqi, were within the scope of its authority and were made in good faith, and therefore are entitled to deference under the business judgment rule ( see Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 538, 554 N.Y.S.2d 807, 553 N.E.2d 1317 [1990] ). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as he failed to submit any evidence to substantiate his allegations of bad faith ( compare Jones v. Surrey Coop. Apts., Inc., 263 A.D.2d 33, 36–37, 700 N.Y.S.2d 118 [1st Dept. 1999], with Louis & Anne Abrons Found. v. 29 E. 64th St. Corp., 297 A.D.2d 258, 746 N.Y.S.2d 482 [1st Dept. 2002] ).
Radoniqi made a prima facie showing that his renovation work at the premises abutting plaintiff's unit did not amount to a private nuisance, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff had no personal knowledge of the specific types of work Radoniqi performed, and his remaining allegations were simply too speculative and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sussman v. MK LCP Rye LLC, Index No.: 156066/2014
...or assertions are insufficient (Alvord and Swift v. Steward M Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281-82 [1978]; Carroll v. Radoniqi, 105 A.D.3d 493 [1st Dept 2013]). Arguments raised for the first time in reply are not to be considered (Sanford v. 27-29 W. 181st St. Ass'n, Inc., 300 A.D.2d ......
-
Mejia v. Delgado
...or assertions are insufficient (Alvord and Swift v. Steward M Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281-82 [1978]; Carroll v. Radoniqi, 105 A.D.3d 493 [1st Dept 2013]). The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and gives the non-moving party the benefit ......
-
Thomas v.
...or assertions are insufficient (Alvord and Swift v. Steward M Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281-282 [1978]; Carroll v. Radoniqi, 105 A.D.3d 493 [1st Dept 2013]). The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and gives the non-moving party the benefit......
-
Villongco v. Tompkins Square Bagels
...(Alvord and Swift v. Steward M. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281–82, 413 N.Y.S.2d 309 [1978] ; Carroll v. Radoniqi, 105 A.D.3d 493, 963 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1st Dept 2013] ).Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an intentional tort “committed by an employee can result in liability for hi......