Simmons v Stolin

[*1] Simmons v Stolin 2014 NY Slip Op 51319(U) Decided on August 20, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 20, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-85 K C

Clark J. Simmons, Respondent,

against

Miriam Stolin and EDWINA GLASCO, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 13, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $240.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the action is dismissed.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $250 for water damage to his car. The damage occurred while the car was parked in the garage of Kingsview Homes, Inc., a residential cooperative with which plaintiff had entered into a parking agreement to park his car in a designated parking spot. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $240.

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendants cannot be held liable for plaintiff's alleged damages. Defendants Edwina Glasco, the president of the co-op's board, and Miriam Stolin, the managing agent of the co-op, were acting on behalf of a disclosed principal, and thus, are not personally liable for any alleged breach of contract committed by their principal (see Weinreb v Stinchfield, 19 AD3d 482 [2005]). Furthermore, the record does not establish that defendants had committed any tortious acts. Since plaintiff failed to allege a basis upon which to hold defendants personally liable, the action should have been dismissed (see Ruti v Knapp, 193 AD2d 662, 663 [1993]). Consequently, the judgment failed to provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: August 20, 2014