| Village Auto Ctr., Inc. v Haimson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03113 [72 AD3d 805] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Village Auto Center, Inc., Appellant, v Jill S. Haimson etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] DL Rothberg & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Debra L. Rothberg of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for professional malpractice and breach ofcontract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.),entered March 27, 2009, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawbased on a contractual provision limiting the plaintiff's damages to the fee for the subject project(i.e., $6,950) (see Smith-Hoy v AMCProp. Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809 [2008]; Peluso v Tauscher CronacherProfessional Engrs., 270 AD2d 325 [2000]; Gold Connection Discount Jewelers vAmerican Dist. Tel. Co., 212 AD2d 577 [1995]). In addition, the defendants established,prima facie, that the defendant Jill S. Haimson was shielded from personal liability, as she actedat all times in her corporate capacity as the president and sole owner of Spectrum CoverageCorp., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, doingbusiness under the trade name Preferred Environmental Services (see AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative BathProds., Inc., 58 AD3d 6 [2008]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence ofcircumstances that would render ineffectual the limitation of liability provision of the parties'contract (see generally Mitthauer v T.Moriarty & Son, Inc., 69 AD3d 588 [2010]; McCoy v Zaman, 67 AD3d 653, 654 [2009]) or that would entitleit to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability on Haimson (see Herman vSiegmund, 102 AD2d 810 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo,Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.