T.D. Bank, N.A. v Halcyon Jets, Inc.

Annotate this Case
T.D. Bank, N.A. v Halcyon Jets, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 06636 Decided on October 4, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 4, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman, Román, JJ.
8198 108640/10

[*1]T.D. Bank, N.A., etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Halcyon Jets, Inc., etc., Defendant, Andrew Drykerman, etc., Defendant-Respondent.




Platzer, Swergold, Karlin, Levine, Goldberg & Jaslow, LLP,
New York (Steven D. Karlin of counsel), for appellant.
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York (John Paul Robbins of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 13, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant Andrew Drykerman's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff bank seeks to hold defendant Drykerman, who opened a line of credit in his capacity as an employee of the defaulting defendant, Halcyon Jets, Inc., personally liable for the corporation's debt. It is well settled that officers or agents of a corporation are not personally liable on corporate contracts
if they do not purport to bind themselves individually (Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export Corp., 15 NY2d 1 [1964]). Here, plaintiff failed to produce the credit card agreement allegedly signed by Drykerman or any documents establishing that he assumed corporate liability (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[2]). Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the [*2]complaint as against Drykerman was properly granted.

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 4, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.