"A corporate officer who executes a contract acting as an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally" (Ho Sports, Inc. v Meridian Sports, Inc., 92 AD3d 915, 916-917 [2012], quoting Stamina Prods., Inc. v Zintec USA, Inc., 90 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2011]). There is no evidence that Mr. DiCarlo agreed to bind himself personally with respect to the transaction with plaintiff (GMS Batching, Inc. v TADCO Const. Corp., 120 AD3d 549, 552 [2014]; McDonagh Real Estate & Dev. v Kwilecki, 158 AD2d 372 [1990]; Vessa v Gull Wing Motors, Inc., 38 Misc 3d 129[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52390[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; Rebatta v Allyn, 2 Misc 3d 132[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50117[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dist 2004]). Consequently, substantial justice (UDCA 1804, 1807) requires that the judgment be modified by dismissing so much of the action as was asserted against defendant DiCarlo, since he cannot be adjudged personally liable for the security deposit accepted by the corporate defendant pursuant to the lease agreement.

PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against George Medynski, president of M G Vintage Auto, Inc. (M G), to recover damages for breach of a warranty issued by M G on a vehicle she purchased from M G. It is well settled that officers of a corporation are not personally liable on the corporation's contracts if they do not purport to bind themselves individually ( see e.g. McDonagh Real Estate Dev. v Kwilecki, 158 AD2d 372; Rebatta v Allyn, 2 Misc 3d 132[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50117[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2004]). The record is devoid of any evidence that defendant George Medynski incurred individual liability in the sale of the vehicle and the issuance of the warranty to plaintiff.

Since "a corporate officer who executes a contract acting as an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally" ( Ho Sports, Inc. v. Meridian Sports, Inc. , 92 AD3d 915, 916–917 [2012], quoting Stamina Prods., Inc. v. Zintec USA, Inc. , 90 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2011] ). There is no evidence that Ms. Belgrove agreed to bind herself personally with respect to the transaction with plaintiff ( GMS Batching, Inc. v. TADCO Const. Corp. , 120 AD3d 549, 552 [2014] ; McDonagh Real Estate & Dev. v. Kwilecki , 158 AD2d 372 [1990] ; Vessa v. Gull Wing Motors, Inc. , 38 Misc 3d 129[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52390[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012] ; Rebatta v. Allyn , 2 Misc 3d 132[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50117[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dist 2004] ). After due deliberation and careful consideration of the evidence before the court, taking into account the demeanor and non-verbal communication of each witness and consistent with the court's responsibility under Section 1804 of the Uniform City Court Act"to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law," I find for the plaintiff against the defendant Belgrove Appliance Inc. in the amount of $2,062.