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
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS ISSUED BASED UPON UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT, STATEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Withdraw Plea Should Have Been Granted
Slippery Dock Was an Open and Obvious Condition—Landowner Had No Duty to Protect Against the Condition
THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL CALL COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE LIGHTER BURDEN OF PROOF PURSUANT TO THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AT THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT). ​
Pedestrian’s Action, In Violation of City Pedestrian Rules, Was the Proximate Cause of Pedestrian’s Injuries (Pedestrian Was Struck by a Car)
DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS TOO WEAK TO MEET THE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (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...