Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (A. Schack, J.), dated June 9, 2003, which granted defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's action.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action for "failure to return money" and "loss of use of property." It appears from plaintiff's papers submitted in opposition to defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the complaint that plaintiff's action arises out of the imposition of late fees and legal fees by Underhill Gardens Apartment Corp., a cooperative housing corporation, pursuant to plaintiff's lease agreement after
plaintiff allegedly defaulted in maintenance payments. In addition, plaintiff's action seeks to recover for Underhill Gardens Apartment Corp.'s denial of use of a portion of the basement of the building which plaintiff claimed she had a right to use for storage pursuant to her lease. Plaintiff named Trapp and Matthews, officers and/or members of the board of directors of the aforementioned corporation, as defendants in this action as well as Sowers (sued herein as Sower), attorney for the corporation, and Altieri, paralegal to defendant Sowers.

To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to pierce the corporate veil in order to hold defendants liable, it has been held that piercing the corporate veil is an equitable form of relief [*2]which the Civil Court lacks the power to grant (see 19 W. 45th St. Realty Co. v Doram Elec. Corp., 233 AD2d 184 [1996]). In any event, upon the record presented, plaintiff entered into the aforementioned lease agreement with Underhill Gardens Apartment Corp. and plaintiff has not pled or proven that defendants purported to bind themselves individually thereunder (see Ridgeline Constructors v Elmira Glass Technology Corp., 183 AD2d 1041 [1992]) or that defendants exercised complete domination of the corporation and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's alleged injury thereby permitting the corporate veil to be pierced (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's action against the defendants.
Decision Date: June 04, 2004