Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 13, 2006, which granted defendant Ivan's motion to dismiss the complaint as against her, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 13, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant Ivan's motion to dismiss the complaint as against her was properly granted. Even accepting plaintiff's claim that this action was commenced on August 3, 2003, the causes of action for negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress
and breach of fiduciary duty, all of which accrued no later than April 1998, are time barred. Plaintiff may not avail himself of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude assertion of the statute of limitations defense because the alleged misrepresentation underlying the estoppel claim is one and the same as that forming the basis of the underlying substantive causes of action (see Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 AFL-CIO v Schwartz, 32 AD3d 710, 714 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 922 [2006]).

The breach of contract cause of action was properly dismissed since there was no allegation that Ivan, the president of defendant Entra America Incorporated, intended to be personally bound by the contract between plaintiff and the corporation (see Noel v L & M Holding Corp., 35 AD3d 681 [2006]). Similarly, the proposed fraud cause of action was palpably insufficient inasmuch as plaintiff failed to allege that Ivan breached any duty owed to him separate and apart from the alleged contractual obligations between plaintiff and the corporate defendant (see Rivas v AmeriMed USA, Inc., 34 AD3d 250 [2006], lv [*2]
denied in part and dismissed in part 8 NY3d 908 [2007]).

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 29, 2008