Plaintiff subcontractor was entitled to summary judgment against individual defendants Conde and Campi based upon evidence establishing that those defendants were, inter alia, officers of the corporate defendant and that the corporate defendant, a general contractor, although dissolved by proclamation for non-payment of franchise taxes (see Tax Law § 203-a; Business Corporation Law § 1009 and § 1005), was utilized to enter into subcontract agreements with plaintiff, and then failed to pay plaintiff for its services thereunder (see Brandes Meat Corp. v. Cromer, III, 146 A.D.2d 666;WorldCom, Inc. v. Sandoval, 182 Misc.2d 1021) . Conde's conclusory assertions as to his claimed efforts to discover why the corporate defendant had been dissolved were insufficient to raise any triable issue as to his liability (see Oil Heat Inst. of Long Is. Ins. Trust v. Gerber Life Ins. Co., 289 A.D.2d 109, 111), and the conclusive effect of the documentary evidence establishing that Campi was a vice president of the corporate defendant was not blunted by defendants' bare claims to the contrary (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 967).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.