You are here: / / Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No...
,

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the installation of motorized window shades did not constitute “home improvement” and therefore plaintiff was not required to be licensed to perform the work.  If a license had been required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York, plaintiff would not have been able to recover under contract or quantum meruit:

“Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis” … . Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades in their condominium did not constitute “home improvement” work within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386(2)…). Rather, the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades constituted decorative work, which was not “incidental or related to” the separate home improvement renovations being performed by other contractors at the defendant’s condominium (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386[2]…). Schimko v Haley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07644, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

You might also like
AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION 2ND DEPT.
“Conclusory” Allegation Rear-End Collision Was Caused by the Sudden Stop of the Lead Vehicle Is Not Enough to Defeat Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion
Assault-Related Convictions Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Instruction Which Was Not Challenged
PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
Forum Selection Clause in Nursing Home Admission Agreement Should Have Been Enforced

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same... Retroactive Suspension of Child Support Payments Based On Interference With...