# Metropolitan Switch Board Co. v. Amici Associates Inc.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · July 11, 2005 · 20 A.D.3d 455

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5687191

## Case

- **Full name:** Metropolitan Switch Board Company, Inc., Doing Business as Metropolitan Electric Manufacturing Company v. Amici Associates, Incorporated, and John Siracusa
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** July 11, 2005
- **Citations:** 20 A.D.3d 455; 799 N.Y.S.2d 531; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7773
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5687191

## Opinion text

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated April 9, 2004, as, upon renewal, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Amici Associates, Incorporated, John Siracusa, and Anthony Restivo which was for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and fourth causes of action insofar as asserted against John Siracusa and Anthony Restivo.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“[A]n individual who signs a corporate contract and indicates the name of the corporation and the nature of his representative capacity on the contract is generally not subject to personal liability” (Matter of Gifford, 144 AD2d 742, 744 [1988]; see Gordon v Teramo & Co., 308 AD2d 432, 433 [2003]; Gottehrer v Viet-Hoa Co., 170 AD2d 648 [1991]; Gold v Royal Cigar Co., 105 AD2d 831, 832 [1984]). Here, the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they executed the subject agreement solely in their capacities as corporate officers, and without any intent to become personally liable to perform thereunder. Moreover, the *456 agreement itself clearly stated that it was entered into between the plaintiff and Amici Associates. The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gordon v Teramo & Co., supra at 433; Gottehrer v Viet-Hoa Co., supra).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5687191. Public record. Not legal advice.