What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the defendants, finding the complaint failed to meet required legal pleading standards for derivative, fiduciary-duty, and declaratory claims.

Who is affected by this decision?

Plaintiff Belina Anderson is affected because her entire complaint was dismissed; the multiple defendant entities benefited from the affirmance.

What happens next for the plaintiff?

Because the dismissal was affirmed, the plaintiff may consider seeking leave to replead if any deficiencies can be cured or pursue leave to appeal to a higher court, subject to appellate rules and deadlines.

Why were the claims dismissed?

Derivative claims were dismissed for failing to allege a required pre-suit demand or futility; individual fiduciary claims failed to allege misconduct beyond ordinary business decisions; declaratory claims were speculative or unsupported by facts.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes, the plaintiff could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such appeals require permission and are not guaranteed.

Anderson v. Artimus Constr., Inc.

Docket Index No. 100012/19 |Appeal No. 6507|Case No. 2024-07623|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02721
Docket numbers: Index No100012/19Appeal No6507Case No2024-07623

Appeal from an order granting defendants' CPLR 3211 motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal under CPLR 3211 of all claims in plaintiff Belina Anderson's complaint against multiple defendants. The court held Anderson's derivative claims failed because she did not plead a required pre-suit demand or futility, her individual fiduciary-duty and nuisance claims did not allege fraud, self-dealing, or unconscionability and were barred by the business judgment rule or arose from contract duties, and her declaratory-judgment and direct claims were speculative or lacked factual support. The court rejected Anderson's procedural challenge under CPLR 2219(a).

Issues Decided

Whether the plaintiff's derivative claims were fatally defective for failing to allege a pre-litigation demand under Business Corporation Law § 626(c) or demand futility.
Whether the plaintiff's individual breach of fiduciary duty and nuisance claims sufficiently alleged fraud, self-dealing, or unconscionability to overcome the business judgment rule.
Whether the declaratory judgment and direct claims were ripe or were merely contingent on future events and thus lacked merit.
Whether the trial court's order was defective under CPLR 2219(a).

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the rule that derivative suits require either a pre-suit demand on the relevant board or pleading particularized facts showing demand would be futile; Anderson pleaded neither and her own complaint showed the board had responded to demands. For individual fiduciary-duty claims, the court explained that mere dissatisfaction with board decisions does not show the kind of self-dealing or bad faith needed to overcome the business judgment rule, and many allegations arose from contractual duties rather than fiduciary obligations. Declaratory and direct claims were dismissed as speculative because they depended on hypothetical future events or lacked allegations that Anderson would act to trigger the claimed rights.

Authorities Cited

Business Corporation Law § 626(c)
Anderson v Harris68 AD3d 472 (1st Dept 2009)
Central Laborers' Pension Fund v Blankfein111 AD3d 40 (1st Dept 2013)
Asbestos Workers Phila. Pension Fund v Bell137 AD3d 680 (1st Dept 2016)
Perlbinder v Board of Mgrs. of 411 E. 53rd St. Condominium65 AD3d 985 (1st Dept 2009)
AG Super Fund Intl. Partners, L.P. v Winthrop Realty Trust149 AD3d 629 (1st Dept 2017)

Parties

Plaintiff: Belina Anderson
Appellant: Belina Anderson
Defendant: Artimus Construction, Inc.
Defendant: 110th Street Equities, LLC
Defendant: Barnard College
Defendant: Board of Trustees of Barnard College
Defendant: College Association of the Cathedral Gardens Condominium
Defendant: Board of Managers of the College Association of the Cathedral Gardens Condominium
Defendant: Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
Defendant: Board of Managers of The Cathedral Gardens Condominium Association
Defendant: City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development
Judge: Debra A. James

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-30
Trial court order entered: 2024-11-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney
Seek counsel to evaluate whether any allegations can be amended to cure the pleading defects, whether facts exist to show demand futility, or whether an appeal is appropriate.
2
Consider motion for leave to replead
If counsel identifies particularized facts that could support demand futility or actionable fiduciary misconduct, file a motion for leave to amend the complaint within applicable deadlines.
3
Evaluate leave to appeal
If there are strong legal issues warranting further review, consult counsel about applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and prepare the necessary application materials.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the defendants, finding the complaint failed to meet required legal pleading standards for derivative, fiduciary-duty, and declaratory claims.
Who is affected by this decision?: Plaintiff Belina Anderson is affected because her entire complaint was dismissed; the multiple defendant entities benefited from the affirmance.
What happens next for the plaintiff?: Because the dismissal was affirmed, the plaintiff may consider seeking leave to replead if any deficiencies can be cured or pursue leave to appeal to a higher court, subject to appellate rules and deadlines.
Why were the claims dismissed?: Derivative claims were dismissed for failing to allege a required pre-suit demand or futility; individual fiduciary claims failed to allege misconduct beyond ordinary business decisions; declaratory claims were speculative or unsupported by facts.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes, the plaintiff could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such appeals require permission and are not guaranteed.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Anderson v Artimus Constr., Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02721

Anderson v Artimus Constr., Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 02721

April 30, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Belina Anderson, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

Artimus Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026

Index No. 100012/19 |Appeal No. 6507|Case No. 2024-07623|

Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Belina Anderson, appellant pro se.

Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Meaghan Roe of counsel), for Artimus Construction, Inc., and 110th Street Equities, LLC, respondents.

Rosenfeld & Kaplan, LLP, New York (Steven M. Kaplan of counsel), for Barnard College, Board of Trustees of Barnard College, College Association of the Cathedral Gardens Condominium, Board of Managers of the College Association of the Cathedral Gardens Condominium, Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, respondents.

Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York (Guiting Lu of counsel), for Board of Managers of The Cathedral Gardens Condominium Association, respondent.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 1, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, any argument that the court's order is invalid based on CPLR 2219(a) is unavailing (
see Anderson v Harris
, 68 AD3d 472, 474 [1st Dept 2009]).

Plaintiff's derivative claims were properly dismissed, as her complaint does not state that she made a pre-litigation demand pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c) to the joint board or the non-college board (on whose behalf she purports to sue) (
see Central Laborers' Pension Fund v Blankfein
, 111 AD3d 40, 46-47 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiff also made no apparent assertions in the complaint as to the futility of a pre-litigation demand (
see Asbestos Workers Phila. Pension Fund v Bell
, 137 AD3d 680, 682 [1st Dept 2016]). Moreover, any futility argument is contradicted by admissions in the complaint that the joint board responded to her demands on several occasions.

As to plaintiff's individual breach of fiduciary duty claims, including her individual nuisance claim, the complaint did not contain any allegations of fraud, self-dealing, or unconscionability (
see

Perlbinder v Board of Mgrs. of 411 E. 53rd St. Condominium
, 65 AD3d 985, 989 [1st Dept 2009]). Rather, the allegations of the complaint indicate that the joint board and/or the college defendants merely declined to take certain actions or to consistently respond to her complaints in the way that she desired. These allegations do not constitute the type of misconduct that would overcome the business judgment rule. Additionally, these claims appear to be based on contractual duties, thus foreclosing allegations of a breach of fiduciary duty (
see Mosaic Caribe, Ltd. v AllSettled Group, Inc.
, 117 AD3d 421, 423 [1st Dept 2014]).

As to plaintiff's individual claims for declaratory judgment, a cause of action for declaratory judgment lacks merit where it "depends on a future event that is beyond the parties' control and may never occur" (
see AG Super Fund Intl. Partners, L.P. v Winthrop Realty Trust
, 149 AD3d 629, 629 [1st Dept 2017]). Plaintiff's direct claim against Artimus Construction, Inc. and 110th Street Equities, LLC, contingent on the outcome of pending litigation, depends on hypothetical events that may never occur. As to the direct claim concerning the durability of the primary residence covenant, plaintiff points to no allegations in the complaint that she intended to either pay off the enforcement mortgage or dispose of the property (
cf. 40-56 Tenth Ave. LLC v 450 W. 14th St. Corp.
, 22 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2005]). Plaintiff's direct claim regarding her purported reporting obligation as to the noncompliance of other unit owners with the primary residence requirement was properly dismissed, as neither the complaint nor the documentary evidence contain any indication that plaintiff might have such an obligation.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 30, 2026