Palisades Office Group, Ltd. v. Kwilecki
| Decision Date | 25 November 1996 |
| Citation | 650 N.Y.S.2d 990,233 A.D.2d 490 |
| Parties | PALISADES OFFICE GROUP, LTD., Appellant, v. David KWILECKI, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pollack and Hyman, LLP, White Plains (I. Miles Pollack, of counsel), for appellant.
Stanley Weiner, Spring Valley, for respondent.
In an action to recover damages based on the breach of a lease, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered October 26, 1995, which, upon the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff corporation rented certain premises to a corporate tenant repeatedly, and uniformly, described in the lease as "Mini-Maxi", or "Mini-Maxi, Inc". The plaintiff's president inserted the corporate signal "Inc." at two points in the lease after the name "Mini-Maxi". The lease and a rider were signed by the defendant David Kwilecki, but in each case his signature is followed by the abbreviation "Pres". Nonetheless, the plaintiff commenced the present action against Kwilecki individually, rather than against the corporation.
Kwilecki's motion for summary judgment was supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate that, in executing the lease, he was acting as the agent of a disclosed corporate principal, so as to be exempt from personal liability (see, e.g., Goldstar Smoked Fish v. Greenfield Partners, 206 A.D.2d 457, 614 N.Y.S.2d 559; Harry Kolomick Contrs. v. Shelter Rock Estates, 172 A.D.2d 492, 567 N.Y.S.2d 845; Tender Loving Care Agency v. Hladun, 111 A.D.2d 162, 488 N.Y.S.2d 790). In opposition, the plaintiff offered conclusory allegations that the corporation in question was a sham (see, Maggio v. Becca Construction Corp., 229 A.D.2d 426, 644 N.Y.S.2d 802; Katz v. N.Y. Tint Taxi Corp., 213 A.D.2d 599, 624 N.Y.S.2d 65; Bowles v. Errico, 163 A.D.2d 771, 558 N.Y.S.2d 734), and equally conclusory allegations that further discovery was required (see, Castrol, Inc. v. Parm Trading Co. of N.Y.C. Inc., 228 A.D.2d 633, 645 N.Y.S.2d 825; Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 A.D.2d 643, 630 N.Y.S.2d 346). We note that the corporation from which the plaintiff now seeks disclosure is not a party to this action (cf., Di Miceli v. Olcott, 119 A.D.2d 539, 500 N.Y.S.2d 549).
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smart Coffee, Inc. v. Sprauer
...as an individual. ( Weinreb v. Stinchfield , 19 A.D.3d 482, 483, 797 N.Y.S.2d 521 [2nd Dept. 2005] ; Palisades Off. Group, Ltd. v. Kwilecki , 233 A.D.2d 490, 491, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990 [1996] ). Sprauer has not presented any credible evidence that the tenant was intended to be any individual or ......
-
Hovering Around Long Island, Inc. v. Sklar, 2007 NY Slip Op 32580(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/17/2007), 0024403/2004
...contract was executed by the parties (see, Weinreb v. Stinchfield, 19 A.D.3d 482, 797 N.Y.S.2d 521, 523; Palisades Office Group, Ltd. v. Kwilecki, 233 A.D.2d 490, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990; Leonard Holzer Associates, Inc. v. Orta, 250 A.D.2d 737, 672 N.Y.S.2d 915, 916). While conclusory statements i......
-
Leonard Holzer Associates, Inc. v. Orta
...bound (see, Savoy Record Co. v. Cardinal Export Corp., 15 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 254 N.Y.S.2d 521, 203 N.E.2d 206; Palisades Off. Group v. Kwilecki, 233 A.D.2d 490, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990). The fact that the agent signs the purported agreement in his own name is of no moment where the party alleging person......