You are here: / / HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT,...

HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK.

The Second Department determined the dismissal of the quantum meruit action by the plaintiff home renovation contractor and the award of damages on the homeowners’ counterclaim was proper. The court noted that General Business Law 771 generally prohibits recovery by a home renovation contractor in the absence of a contract, however the contractor can bring an action in quantum meruit. Here the contractor did not prove entitlement to quantum meruit relief and the homeowners proved (by expert opinion) the damages related to needed corrections of the contractors’ work:

​

Although a contractor cannot enforce a contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771, a contractor may seek to recover based on the equitable theory of quantum meruit … . “The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are (1) performance of services in good faith, (2) acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) reasonable value of the services rendered” … .

Although an unenforceable writing may provide evidence of the value of services rendered in quantum meruit … , here, the record is devoid of evidence which would establish the reasonable value of the services [the contractor] may have provided to the defendants … . …

​

In contrast, the defendants, on their counterclaim, offered the testimony of experts regarding the cost they expended in completing or repairing roofing, flooring, brickwork, and other aspects of the project as set forth in the architectural plans. Home Constr. Corp. v Beaury, 2017 NY Slip Op 02628, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/CONTRACTORS (HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)/QUANTUM MERUIT HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK)

You might also like
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
In an Employment Discrimination Case, Plaintiff Is a Member of a Protected Class By Virtue of His Wife’s Religion
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP PROVIDED FAMILY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER PETITION SEEKING ORDER OF PROTECTION.
THE RULING THAT PETITIONER-CORRECTION-OFFICER’S DISABLING CONDITION WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ALTERCATION WITH AN INMATE WAS SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” IN THIS CONTEXT IS DEFINED (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct

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

HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL... DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL...