| Weiss v Michael Taylor, Ltd. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04155 [95 AD3d 1305] |
| May 30, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shana Weiss et al., Respondents, v Michael Taylor, Ltd.,Defendant, and Michael Taylor, Appellant. |
—[*1] Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Gair G. Betts ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the defendantMichael Taylor appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated May 23, 2011, as denied those branches ofhis motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, third, and fifth causes ofaction insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thosebranches of the motion of the defendant Michael Taylor which were for summary judgmentdismissing the first, third, and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against him are granted.
The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant MichaelTaylor (hereinafter Taylor), which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause ofaction, which alleged breach of contract, insofar as asserted against him. Taylor established,prima facie, that he entered into the alleged agreement in his capacity as the president of MichaelTaylor, Ltd. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence ofcircumstances that would entitle them to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability onTaylor (see Village Auto Ctr., Inc. vHaimson, 72 AD3d 805, 806 [2010]; Williams v Lovell Safety Mgt. Co., LLC, 71 AD3d 671, 672[2010]).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of Taylor's motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, which alleged conversion, insofar asasserted against him. Taylor established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by showing that this cause of action, as pleaded, was predicated on a mere breach of contract(see Weinstein v Natalie WeinsteinDesign Assoc., Inc., 86 AD3d 641, 642 [2011]; East End Labs., Inc. v Sawaya, 79 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2010];Wolf v National Council of Young Israel, 264 AD2d 416, 417 [1999]). In opposition, theplaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.[*2]
Finally, Taylor was properly awarded summary judgmentdismissing the fifth cause of action insofar as asserted against him. In opposition to his primafacie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Ort v Ort, 78 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2010]; Light v Light, 64 AD3d 633, 634[2009]), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally High Tides, LLC v DeMichele, 88 AD3d 954,957-958 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011NY Slip Op 31407(U).]