You are here: / / PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the plaintiff contractor was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license by the New York City Administrative Code. Therefore plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated and quantum meruit causes action against the owner of the property plaintiff worked on was correctly dismissed. The First Department determined the LLC which owned the property was an “owner” within the meaning of the Administrative Code, and the contract was a home improvement contract within the meaning of the meaning of the code:

Obtaining a home improvement contractor’s license is neither a ministerial act nor a mere technicality … . Rather, “strict compliance with the licensing statute [i.e. Administrative Code § 20-387] is required, with the failure to comply barring recovery regardless of whether the work performed was satisfactory, whether the failure to obtain the license was willful or, even, whether the homeowner knew of the lack of a license and planned to take advantage of its absence” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff is a “contractor” for licensing purposes (see Administrative Code § 20-386[5]), and that plaintiff did not have a valid license. The controversy here essentially distills to whether defendant owners are “owners” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 20-387(a), and, if so, whether the agreement between the parties was a “home improvement contract” (Administrative Code § 20-386[6]). If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then plaintiff was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license to recover for the work; if the answer to either question is no, then plaintiff did not need a license. KSP Constr., LLC v LV Prop. Two, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00356, First Dept 1-25-24

Practice Point: A contractor who does renovation work in New York City without a NYC Home Improvement Contractor’s license cannot sue for payment for the work.

 

You might also like
THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE DATE WAS PROPERLY SET; THE BUYER WAS NOT ABLE TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE: DEFENDANTS-SELLERS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DOWNPAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).
MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.
ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SUPERMARKET DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GRAPES ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM.
PLANTIFF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER IN 2014 IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF LAVERN’S LAW (CPLR 214-A) IN 2018, WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER BY VIRTUE OF ITS RETROACTIVE-APPLICATION AND REVIVAL PROVISIONS, THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL HEALTH... THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED...