Opinion
570823/03.
Decided January 14, 2005.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated July 19, 2002 (Lucy Billings, J.) which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
Order dated July 19, 2002 (Lucy Billings, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, defendant's motion denied, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is granted in the principal sum of $4,214.40. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The related agreements executed by defendant Cavallo, when read together ( see, Flemington Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. Domler Leasing Corp., 65 AD2d 29, 32, affd 48 NY2d 678), clearly establish said defendant's individual liability for the medical insurance and pension fund payments sued for herein. The "Independent Producer's Agreement," whose terms obligated the "Producer" to make such payments to the plaintiff trust fund on a weekly basis, listed the producer as "Family Values Company (by Robert M. Cavallo)" and was signed by defendant Cavallo — without reference to any representative, corporate capacity — on a line below which was preprinted "Robert M. Cavallo." That document expressly referred to a security agreement executed one week earlier, whose heading identified both the "Producer" and "Guarantor" as "Family Values Company (by Robert M. Cavallo)." The security agreement included the following provision in paragraph 15: "Individual Signature Required. The Producer and Guarantor each severally agree that his signature on this agreement, if in a representative capacity, is also an individual signature binding him individually to this agreement. This provision is of the essence of this contract." Adoption of the defendant's contention that he signed the guaranty solely in a representative capacity would not only contradict the express terms of paragraph 15 of the security agreement, but "would compel the illogical conclusion that the purpose of the Guaranty was to provide that in case of (Family Values') default, th[at] [entity] would guaranty its own indebtedness, rendering the entire Guaranty meaningless" ( PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Sys., 283 AD2d 268, 270-271, appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 763).
There is no record showing that "Family Values Company," apparently comprising an acting troupe whose members performed in a production of a play titled "Family Values," is in fact a duly licensed corporation.
Nor is there any merit to defendant's argument that plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the underlying agreements. Although prepared and executed by the collective bargaining association of which the plaintiff trust fund is a part, the agreements sued upon, including the independent producer's agreement whose terms specifically identified plaintiff as the designated payee of the weekly insurance and pension contributions here involved, were clearly intended for plaintiff's benefit ( see Lionhart Global Appreciation Fund, Ltd. v. Essential Resources, Inc., 302 AD2d 334).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.