Bent v Cirone
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A condominium governance dispute over whether individual condominium board members can be sued directly for allegedly retaliatory and tortious board conduct, and whether a non-owner assignee has standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of unit owners.
The lower court dismissed the first amended complaint as against the individual defendants, including both direct and derivative claims, and also dismissed the claim seeking inspection of board records.
The Appellate Division reinstated the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action to the extent they were direct claims against the individual board members, but left intact the dismissal of the derivative claims and the inspection claim.
The complaint adequately alleged that the individual board members participated in, directed, controlled, or approved the challenged conduct and included nonconclusory allegations of an animus-driven retaliatory campaign, which was enough at the pre-discovery stage to defeat dismissal and avoid protection under the business judgment rule and by-law liability limitations for bad faith or willful misconduct. The derivative claims remained dismissed because plaintiff did not hold the condominium membership interest required to sue derivatively, despite an assignment of claims from his wife.
Background
Bruce R. Bent sued Anthony Cirone and other condominium board members over alleged tortious and retaliatory actions taken by the condominium board. Bent asserted both direct claims and derivative claims purportedly on behalf of the condominium's unit owners. He relied in part on an assignment from his wife, the unit owner, of litigation claims against defendants. The dispute also involved a request to inspect board records and a request for leave to replead.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint insofar as it asserted direct and derivative claims against the individual defendants Anthony Cirone, Michael Dansky, Lee Kempler, and Lindsay Weber Siano. The court also dismissed the eighth cause of action seeking inspection of board records and denied plaintiff's request for leave to replead.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order to deny dismissal of the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, thereby reinstating those direct claims against the individual defendants. It affirmed dismissal of the derivative claims because plaintiff lacked the necessary ownership-based membership interest in the condominium to sue on behalf of unit owners. It also held that plaintiff abandoned any appeal from dismissal of the eighth cause of action seeking inspection of records. The denial of leave to replead was clarified to be without prejudice to renewal. The court also recalled and vacated its earlier June 18, 2026 decision in the matter.
Legal Significance
The decision confirms that, in condominium disputes, individual board members may face direct personal liability at the pleading stage when a complaint specifically alleges that they collectively participated in or approved tortious conduct, especially where the alleged conduct is retaliatory and motivated by animus. It also reinforces that an assignment of claims alone does not confer standing to assert derivative claims on behalf of condominium unit owners; the plaintiff must possess the underlying membership interest tied to ownership.
Direct claims against condominium board members can survive dismissal when the complaint plausibly alleges bad-faith, retaliatory, or otherwise tortious participation by the members themselves, but derivative standing cannot be created merely by assigning claims without also transferring the required ownership or membership interest.