Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Board of Mgrs. of the 411 E. 53rd St. Condominium v. Perlbinder
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 4786; 151 A.D.3d 523; 55 N.Y.S.3d 45Docket: 4240 650603/14
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 13, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court addressed the case of Board of Managers of the 411 East 53rd Street Condominium v. Perlbinder, decided on June 13, 2017. The court reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied defendant Stephen Perlbinder's motion for summary judgment on a claim of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on that claim, which was subsequently reversed. The appellate court found that it was erroneous for the lower court to conclude that Stephen aided and abetted Barton Mark Perlbinder’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty, as there was no determination that Barton actually breached such a duty. The communications made by both defendants to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) were not found to interfere with an existing injunction that prevented them from obstructing the condominium's access related to the installation of a backflow prevention device. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Stephen had actual knowledge of any breach of fiduciary duty by Barton or that he provided substantial assistance in furtherance of that breach. The appeal by Barton Mark Perlbinder was dismissed as abandoned. The decision culminates in the order being entered on June 13, 2017, reaffirming the conclusion that Stephen Perlbinder’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, while the previous summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff was vacated.