Weinreb v. Stinchfield, 2003-09911.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2003-09911. |
| Parties | KAREN WEINREB, Respondent, v. GRANT P. STINCHFIELD, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is permanently stayed on the ground that the defendant Grant P. Stinchfield did not sign the contract in his individual capacity.
In June 2001 the parties executed a written construction management contract for the construction of a home. After differences arose between the parties, the appellant commenced an arbitration proceeding on behalf of his company, Junefield Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Junefield), to collect moneys due and owing. The arbitration proceeding was initiated in accordance with the terms of the contract at issue. The plaintiff then commenced this action.
By pre-answer motion, the appellant moved to stay this action and compel arbitration. By order entered May 5, 2003, the appellant's motion to stay the action was granted to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of whether he signed the contract in his individual capacity, as the plaintiff insists, or as the agent of Junefield. After the hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant signed the contract in his individual capacity. We reverse.
When an agent acts on behalf of a disclosed principal, the agent will not be personally liable for a breach of contract unless there is clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to be personally bound (see Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export Corp., 15 NY2d 1, 4 [1964]; Mencher v Weiss, 306 NY 1, 4 [1953]; Holzer Assoc. v Orta, 250 AD2d 737 [1998]; Palisades Off. Group v Kwilecki, 233 AD2d 490, 491 [1996]). In this case, precontractual correspondence provided to the plaintiff, as well as the construction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonough v. 50 E. 96th St., LLC
...and A. Ruth and Sons were acting on behalf of the landlord and do not show any intent to be personally liable. See, e.g. Weinreb v. Stinchfleld, 19 A.D.3d 482; Diabetes Assn. v. Abbey, Mecca & Co, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 1333 (4th Dept. 2010). Plaintiffs claim that there has been no discovery yet i......
-
Smart Coffee, Inc. v. Sprauer
...unless there is clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to be bound 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 pres......
-
Hovering Around Long Island, Inc. v. Sklar, 2007 NY Slip Op 32580(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/17/2007), 0024403/2004
...personally bound if his capacity as an agent was disclosed when the 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, 2......
-
Stamina Prods., Inc. v. Zintec USA, Inc.
...55, 176 N.E.2d 74; Yellow Book Sales & Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Mantini, 85 A.D.3d 1019, 1021, 925 N.Y.S.2d 646; Weinreb v. Stinchfield, 19 A.D.3d 482, 483, 797 N.Y.S.2d 521; Star Video Entertainment v. J & I Video Distrib., 268 A.D.2d 423, 702 N.Y.S.2d 91). There must be “clear and explicit e......