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
BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE INABILITY OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CONTINUE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY MEMBER RESIDES, AS WELL AS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS, APPLICABILITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PRIVILEGE FOR REPORTING ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT DEMONSTRATED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED.
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Agreement to Pay over $500,000 (Re: Prior Loans Allegedly Made Over a Period... Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment...