Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith
289 A.D.2d 281, 670 N.Y.S.2d 907 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A homeowners association's duties are strictly limited by its governing documents, and duties not explicitly stated or reasonably inferred will not be imposed by a court. Furthermore, a corporate officer cannot be held personally liable for the corporation's actions unless a plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.
Facts:
- Alfred Barone was the president of the corporation that constructed a town house development.
- The Coventry Homeowners Association, Inc. (Coventry) governed the development, and its responsibilities were detailed in an offering plan.
- Approximately six years after construction, ten-year-old Joshua Eagle resided in one of the town houses with his parents, Leonard and Jacqueline Eagle.
- While Joshua Eagle was climbing on the brick facade of his family's town house, the facade detached from the building.
- The detached facade collapsed on top of Joshua Eagle, causing his death.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's representative filed two wrongful death actions in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, a New York trial court.
- Action No. 1 was filed against Coventry Homeowners Association, Inc. (Coventry).
- Action No. 2 was filed against Alfred Barone.
- In Action No. 1, Coventry filed a third-party complaint against the decedent's parents, Leonard Mark Eagle and Jacqueline Eagle.
- Coventry, Barone, and the Eagles each moved for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Coventry, dismissing the complaint against it.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Barone, dismissing the complaint against him, and a final judgment was entered in his favor.
- The trial court also granted summary judgment to the Eagles, dismissing Coventry's third-party complaint.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Coventry and Barone to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowners association have a duty to inspect and maintain the exterior facade of a townhouse when such a duty is not specified in its governing documents, and can the president of the corporation that constructed the townhouse be held personally liable for a fatal accident resulting from a structural collapse without evidence to pierce the corporate veil?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A homeowners association does not have a duty that is not specified in its governing documents, and a corporate president cannot be held personally liable without evidence to pierce the corporate veil. The court determined that Coventry's responsibilities were clearly defined in the offering plan for the town house development. This plan did not include the inspection or maintenance of the exterior shell of the residents' town houses, and the court refused to infer such a responsibility from Coventry's other listed obligations. Regarding Alfred Barone, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that would justify piercing the corporate veil, a necessary step to hold a corporate officer personally liable for the corporation's acts or omissions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the duties of a homeowners association are fundamentally contractual and are strictly confined to the terms of its governing documents. Courts are hesitant to expand these duties beyond what is expressly written, protecting such associations from unforeseen liabilities. The ruling also underscores the significant legal protection afforded by the corporate form, confirming the high evidentiary burden a plaintiff must meet to 'pierce the corporate veil' and hold individual officers personally liable for corporate torts. This strengthens the shield against personal liability for corporate officers acting within the scope of their roles.

Unlock the full brief for Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith