[*1]
Rebatta v Allyn
2004 NY Slip Op 50117(U)
Decided on February 3, 2004
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 3, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-573 RO C

ROMULO REBATTA, Respondent,

against

CAROLE ALLYN, Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Justice Court, Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (C. Johns, J.), entered December 10, 2002, after trial, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,783.36, and which implicitly dismissed the counterclaim.


Judgment unanimously modified by dismissing the action without prejudice to plaintiff instituting an action against the proper party; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought the return of his security deposit pursuant to leases entered into with Congers Realty, Inc. An answer with counterclaim was purportedly interposed by defendant Carole Allyn, who sought dismissal of plaintiff's claim as well as recovery for lost rent, utility bills, and damage to the premises which was allegedly caused by plaintiff. Although prior to trial, defendant raised the issue that she was not a proper party to the proceeding, the court did not address the issue, and ultimately rendered a judgment against Ms. Allyn.

It is well established that the officers of a corporation are not personally liable on the corporation's contracts if they do not purport to bind themselves individually (see e.g. McDonagh Real Estate & Dev. v Kwilecki, 158 AD2d 372 [1990]). A review of both lease agreements reveals that the landlord of the premises was Congers Realty, Inc., and that the leases were signed by Carole Allyn in her capacity as secretary of the corporate landlord. Accordingly, plaintiff's prima facie case established liability, if at all, on the part of the corporation and not on the part of any individual. We note that, for similar reasons, the implicit dismissal of the counterclaim was proper inasmuch as said cause of action properly belonged to the corporation. [*2]
Decision Date: February 03, 2004