Under these circumstances, defendants cannot escape personal liability for the claims asserted by plaintiff. An agent is individually liable, if, upon entering a contract, he fails to disclose the fact of his agency and the identity of his principal. The requirement of disclosure is not met by the use of a trade name. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied because, since defendants never disclosed their purported status as agents for a limited liability company, they may indeed be liable, in their individual capacities, to plaintiff herein. Finally, the cases cited by defendants in support of the motion are completely inapposite.
Defendants argue that plaintiff is estopped from denying the corporate existence of defendants.
However, because there is no evidence that plaintiff ever dealt with defendants as members of a limited liability company, defendants' reliance on an estoppel theory is misplaced. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint adding Zuma as a party defendant, and service of the amended complaint on each of the parties, as well as against Zuma, has been completed. As there does not appear to be any opposition to the cross motion, it is granted. The Court has considered the remaining claims, and finds them to be without merit. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.