Just as in Legal malpractice, so professional malpractice has its pleading rules.  In Beck v. Studio Kenji;  2011 NY Slip Op 33470(U) ; December 21, 2011; Sup Ct, NY County; Docket Number: 108995/09 ;Judge: Louis B. York we see the Court reducing the variety of claims to a contract and a negligence claim. 

" In this action, plaintiff Andrew Beck III (Beck) sues defendants Studio Kenji (Kenji), Justin Miyamoto Weiner (Weiner), and Ellen Honigstock (Honigstock), alleging eight causes of action including breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malpractice. Plaintiff states that as a result of defendants’ gross mismanagement of its architectural and reconstruction project and corresponding failure to investigate New York City rules, regulations, and codes, plaintiff was forced to deconstruct nearly all work performed during defendants’ three-plus years on the project, and rebuild large portions of the apartment to satisfy the requirements of the building code so the building could maintain its temporary certificate of occupancy.

The following facts of the case are undisputed:   Plaintiff purchased Unit PH7/8N,eighth and rooftop floors at 169 Hudson Street around August of 2004. Plaintiff retained Weiner on behalf of Kenji, a high-end Manhattan interior design and consulting firm, to plan and design the interior and various other elements of plaintiffs apartment, and to serve as manager, consultant, and designer for the apartment’s construction. Plaintiff and Weiner, on behalf of Kenji, subsequently agreed upon a
comprehensive eight-page design and consulting agreement (the retainer agreement). The retainer agreement stated that Kenji and Weiner would design and prepare drawings and architectural plans, file the plans with the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), and obtain all necessary approvals for the build out. The initial sketches included the removal of a section of the separation between the existing seventh and the newly constructed eighth floors to create a double-height space and the addition of a catwalk connecting both ends of the apartment. The final architectural plans, including the above elements, were filed with the DOB.From 2004 through early 2008, plaintiff alleges, he paid in excess of one million dollars to defendants in connection with their work on the project. On or about October of 2007, with work at a standstill, plaintiffs interior designer and his project contractor each advised him to retain a new, independent architect. Plaintiff hired a new architect to review the status of the project and formally terminated defendants in early 2008. In March 2008, plaintiffs new architect inspected the construction that had
occurred and determined that many aspects of the apartment’s design, including but not
limited to the double height space and the catwalk, failed to meet both the industry
standards and the DOE! fire and safety codes and regulations. The new architect created a
plan to remedy the problems without deconstructing the original work. However, the DOB rejected the plan and, as a result, deconstruction of defendants’ work was necessary. Subsequently, plaintiff commenced this action."

"Defendants’ basis for dismissal of the claims asserted against Weiner is that the contract in question was with Kenji, not Weiner, and plaintiff retained Kenji to provide services regarding the interior spaces and roof decks for plaintiff’s apartment, with Honigstock as the architect of record for the project. As defendants argue, under New York law “persons may not be held liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts.’’ (Wiernik v. Kurth, 59 A.D.3d 535, 537, 873 N.Y.S.2d 673,675-76 [TdDe pt 20091). Here, Weiner signed the retainer agreement in his capacity as an officer of Studio Kenji (Plaintiffs
exhibit C), rather than in his individual capacity. Nor does plaintiff raise an issue of fact as to whether Weiner held himself out as individually responsible for the work in question. Accordingly, as defendants assert, Weiner cannot be held liable for the alleged breach of contract .

We’ll discuss the further dismissals tomorrow.