PER CURIAM:
Landlord previously recovered possession of the rent stabilized apartment at issue upon proof that the lease to the corporate tenant violated the rule against creation of perpetual tenancies (see Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 229 AD2d 197, lv denied 90 NY2d 835). Subsequently, landlord moved to recover fair market use and occupancy from respondent Schwartz at the rate of $5,000 per month for the period commencing October 1998, when the last lease expired, through October 2002. Schwartz had commenced residing in the premises in 1984 and, since 1992, served as the sole corporate officer and shareholder. Civil Court denied relief without prejudice to landlord's right to maintain an action in Supreme Court under the equitable doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.
The stabilized rent was approximately $1,520.
We affirm. Landlord correctly cites the principle that the absence of privity is no bar to a cause of action for use and occupancy (see 19 West 45th Street Realty Co. v. Doram Electric Corp., 233 AD2d 184), but that proposition has generally been applied where an independent entity, such as a subtenant, holds over (see 1133 Building Corp. v. Ketchum Communications Inc., 224 Ad2D 336; 501 East 87th St. Realty Co. v. Ole Pa Enterprises Inc., 191 Misc 2d 796, 799, affd 304 AD2d 310). In this case, it is the corporation that was the sole tenant and it is the corporation that held over. Schwartz's occupancy is not severable from that of the corporation since, manifestly, a corporation can "reside" in a residential apartment only through its authorized agent(s). Any renewal leases signed by Schwartz were executed only in her representative capacity, and rent was always paid by corporate check. In substance, landlord seeks to cast Schwartz in damages for a corporation debt notwithstanding that "[t]he law permits the incorporation of a business for the very purpose of escaping personal liability" (Bartle v. Home Owners Cooperative, Inc., 309 NY 103, 106). Moreover, it is at least an uneven application of the law to, on the one hand, withhold a renewal lease because of the indefinite nature of the corporate tenancy and, on the other hand, to go behind the corporation and impose liability upon the individual owner.
The record indicates that the corporation filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.