DI NARDO v. L & W INDUS. PARK OF BUFFALO, INC.


74 A.D.2d 736 (1980)

Robert Di Nardo, Respondent, v. L & W Industrial Park of Buffalo, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Harold Schectman, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

February 20, 1980


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, defendant Schectman's motion to dismiss granted with leave to plaintiff to renew his motion, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff alleges that after he, as real estate broker, brought together the corporate defendants, L & W Industrial Park of Buffalo, Inc., and Truly Magic Products, Inc., as seller and buyer respectively of a certain industrial park, the corporate defendants, together with those of their officers and directors named as individual defendants, conspired to deprive plaintiff of his real estate commission. Appellant is president of corporate defendant L & W Industrial Park, Inc. The trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss as to him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) for failure to state a cause of action. Generally, when an officer or director acts on behalf of his corporation, he may not be held liable for inducing his corporation to violate its contractual obligations unless his activity involves separate tortious conduct or results in personal profit (Turntables, Inc. v M.B. Plastics Corp., 31 A.D.2d 792; Rothschild v World-Wide Automobiles Corp., 24 A.D.2d 861, affd 18 N.Y.2d 982). Plaintiff's pleadings contain no allegation that there was tortious conduct on the part of appellant which was separate from his conduct as officer and director of L & W or that appellant personally profited from the scheme to avoid paying plaintiff's commission. In view of this, Special Term erred in refusing to dismiss the complaint as to appellant. However, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff should, within 20 days of service of the order to be entered herein, be permitted to present evidence showing separate tortious conduct or personal profit on the part of appellant for the purpose of obtaining permission to replead (see CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Roberts v Finkel, 46 A.D.2d 878).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases