You are here: / / Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation...
, ,

Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted individual defendant’s (Valentino’s) motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 because the evidence did not “utterly refute” plaintiff’s claim he had no notice Valentino was acting as an agent of a disclosed corporate principal when a building contract was executed:

“It is well settled that an individual who signs a contract as an agent for an entity will be held personally liable on the contract if the agency relationship is not disclosed” … . Whether or not a principal is disclosed depends upon whether, at the time of the underlying transaction, the other party to the contract had notice that the agent was acting for a principal and knew of the principal’s identity … .

Here, the contract identified J & J Enterprises as the builder, but there is no reference in the contract or in the accompanying specifications sheet to the status of J & J Enterprises as the trade name of a corporation or to Valentino’s status as an officer or representative of any such corporation.  Winer v Valentino, 2014 NY Slip Op 07050, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

You might also like
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs
MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT.
HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.
Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD DESPITE RETURNING TO WORK AT PREINJURY WAGES (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous Condition Which Caused Gas Escaping from a Propane Tank to Ignite/Question of Fact Whether the Injured Employee’s Negligent Act (the Employee, Against the Direction of His Supervisor, Brought a Partially-Filled Propane Tank Inside the Building) Was Foreseeable
BEFORE PETITIONER INMATE’S ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS CONSIDERED RESPONDENT VOLUNTARILY REVERSED THE GUILTY FINDINGS ON THE PRISON DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY” (THIRD DEPT).
SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Can Charge Towns the Amounts Paid by the County On Behalf of Community... Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent...