Summary
affirming jury finding of personal liability
Summary of this case from Oost-Lievense v. North American Consortium, P.C.Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Following a retrial (see, Levy v Gold Co., Real Estate, 119 A.D.2d 554) the defendant contends on this appeal that it acted as an agent for S.G. Associates, a disclosed principal, and that the verdict is therefore contrary to the law and against the weight of the evidence. We disagree.
The trial court correctly charged the jury, as requested by the defendant, that an agent for a disclosed principal will not be personally bound unless there is clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to substitute his personal liability for that of his principal or to add his personal liability to that of his principal (see, Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export Corp., 15 N.Y.2d 1, 4; Mencher v Weiss, 306 N.Y. 1, 4; Sweeney v Herman Mgt., 85 A.D.2d 34, 36-37).
This contract was addressed "To: S.G. Associates David C. Gold Co., Real Estate, Inc." but it was signed only by the president of David C. Gold Co., Real Estate, Inc. in the following manner:
"[President's Signature] ________________________________ "David Gold Co."
In addition, the defendant's president informed the plaintiff that he could look to the defendant for payment, and the plaintiff, who had dealt with defendant for the previous five years and relied on its good faith in meeting its contractual obligations, gave a $2,000 discount on the contract price. Accordingly, the record supports the jury's finding that the defendant intended to substitute its liability for that of its principal, S.G. Associates (see, Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export Corp., supra, at 4; cf., Martin Roofing v Goldstein, 60 N.Y.2d 262, 264-265, cert denied 466 U.S. 905; see also, Restatement [Second] of Agency § 146). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.