Yury Abdurakhmanov et al., Respondents, v. Svetlana Ruinsky et al., Defendants, and Richard Finkelstein et al., Appellants

(June 26, 2000) Yury Abdurakhmanov et al., Respondents, v Svetlana Ruinsky et al., Defendants, and Richard Finkelstein et al., Appellants. [710 NYS2d 606] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Richard Finkelstein, Jack Finkelstein, and H.C.I.R. Service Center, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated April 29, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed. The appellant H.C.I.R. Service Center, Inc. (hereinafter H.C.I.R.) is an out-of-possession landlord which leased its premises to an automobile repair shop. The individual appellants are the shareholders of H.C.I.R. The subject accident occurred on the premises when an automobile mechanic accidentally started a vehicle which hit the plaintiff. H.C.I.R. and its shareholders established a prima facie case of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiffs failed to establish any triable issue of fact with respect to their liability (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). It cannot be said that H.C.I.R. was in any way responsible for the accident in question (see, Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, 214 AD2d 489). In any case, the shareholders cannot be held liable for the acts of the corporation (see, Seuter v Lieherman, 229 AD2d 386). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.