Opinion
December 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
Although on a motion addressed to the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and accorded every favorable inference, nevertheless, allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions, as well as factual claims either inherently incredible or contradicted by documentary evidence, are not entitled to such consideration (Mark Hampton, Inc. v Bergreen, 173 A.D.2d 220). The IAS Court properly dismissed the individual plaintiff's complaint seeking, inter alia, to recover lost profits on the sale of a Renoir painting and for breach of contract, because the documentary evidence attached to the complaint, including an Invoice of Sale and Bill of Sale for the purchase and sale of the painting, flatly contradicted the allegations in the complaint (La Potin v Lang Co., 30 A.D.2d 527, 528), by establishing that the corporate entity, Paul D. Quatrochi, Ltd., rather than the plaintiff individually, had contracted to sell the Renoir, and that any damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged improper actions were therefore suffered solely by the corporate entity rather than the individual plaintiff (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Kalkstein, 101 A.D.2d 102, 106).
The individual plaintiff, as a corporate shareholder, lacked standing to sue in his own name for injuries to the corporation (Miglietta v Kennecott Copper Corp., 25 A.D.2d 57, 58), since the exhibits annexed to the complaint established that the individual plaintiff, by executing the documents solely in his capacity as corporate president, intended to bind the corporation rather than the individual signatory, and thereby avoid any personal liability (American Media Concepts v Atkins Pictures, 179 A.D.2d 446).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.