Opinion
March 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment in Action No. 4 is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, a computation of the interest owing to the plaintiff school district, and the entry of a judgment for the amount owed to it; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment in Action No. 5 is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, a computation of the interest owing to the plaintiff school districts, and the entry of a judgment for the amount owed to them; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment in Action No. 9 is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, a computation of the interest owing to the plaintiff school districts, an accounting, and the entry of a judgment for the amount owed to them; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment in Action No. 11 is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, a computation of the interest owing to the plaintiff school district, and the entry of a judgment for the amount owed to it; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.
Our determination in Board of Educ. v Rettaliata ( 181 A.D.2d 648 [decided herewith]) is dispositive of the instant appeals.
With respect to Action No. 9, we find that an accounting was properly ordered in light of the uncontroverted statements by the plaintiffs that certain financial data was unavailable for their review. The issue of Patrick Vecchio's liability in his personal capacity is not before us, as the order and judgment in Action No. 9 is silent on that issue (see, Katz v Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536). In any event, we note that there was no showing that Patrick Vecchio acted in bad faith, or received a personal profit, and he cannot be held personally liable for acts committed in his professional capacity (see, Stewart v Scheinert, 64 A.D.2d 699, affd 47 N.Y.2d 826; Rottkamp v Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, affd 15 N.Y.2d 831). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.