Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492,
499 [1983]).
Plaintiff's landlord, defendant Garth, has made no argument to this court concerning
plaintiff's entitlement to recover his prepaid rent and security deposit, and, thus, we find
no basis to disturb so much of the judgment as awarded plaintiff the principal sum of
$4,834.52 as against that defendant.
"[A]n agent for a disclosed principal 'will not be personally bound unless there is
clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to substitute or superadd his personal
liability for, or to, that of his principal' " (Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export
Corp., 15 NY2d 1, 4 [1964], quoting Mencher v Weiss, 306 NY 1, 4 [1953]).
Defendant Samson's status as an agent for defendant Garth in all its dealings with
plaintiff was fully disclosed in the lease, lease rider, and renewal lease which plaintiff
signed; those documents required plaintiff to make lease and [*3]security deposit payments to Samson, but only in its
capacity as Garth's agent, and there was no evidence that Samson intended to substitute
or add its liability to Garth's. Plaintiff thus did not have a cause of action against Samson
either for breach of the lease or for the return of his security deposit or prepaid rent.
Accordingly, so much of the judgment as was against Samson for, in effect, the return of
plaintiff's security deposit and prepaid rent failed to render substantial justice between
the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).
Since the testimony demonstrated that the parties considered the Agreement to reflect
their contractual understanding, the Civil Court's determination not to enforce its terms
failed to render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and