Summary
stating that there is a “rule that a disclosed corporate agent ... cannot be held personally liable for the acts of his corporations, unless he has participated or personally profited in the wrong”
Summary of this case from Lax v. 29 Woodmere Boulevard Owners, Inc.Opinion
February 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
The rule that "a disclosed corporate agent * * * cannot be held personally liable for the acts of his corporations, unless he has participated or personally profited in the wrong" ( Board of Mgrs. v. Fairways at N. Hills, 150 A.D.2d 32, 39), does not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant Charles H. Greenthal Management in the absence of any proof of disclosure of such purported status with respect to a specific principal. Even if defendants-appellants had demonstrated that they made no contractual commitment to maintain the common elements of the subject condominium building, the owners of the "residential units" have a nondelegable duty to keep the premises in good repair (Multiple Dwelling Law § 78; Camaj v. East 52nd Partners, 215 A.D.2d 150). A duty to maintain the premises is also imposed by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2005, and is enforceable as against the owner of a condominium unit ( see, Smith v. Parkchester N. Condominium, 163 Misc.2d 66; Gazdo Props. Corp. v. Lava, 149 Misc.2d 828, appeal dismissed 150 Misc.2d 1019). The defendant condominium association appeared in this action prior to the expiration of the period of limitations as to plaintiffs' claims relevant herein. We also note the parties' ensuing stipulation did not preserve any claim by defendant condominium association that the action was commenced as against it only upon the service of the amended complaint and that there was proof on the motion that the water damage was continuing. In any event, the relevant claims asserted in the amended complaint relate back to the commencement of the action for purposes of the Statute of Limitations, where, as here, the amended pleading "merely expands" upon the original ( Pickholz v First Boston, 202 A.D.2d 277; see, CPLR 203 [f]).
We have considered defendants-appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.