You are here: / / THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN...
, , , ,

THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC; THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION’S VICE PRESIDENT WAS LICENSED AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY, WHICH DID THE ELECTRICAL WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, WAS LICENSED DOESN’T MATTER; THE CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical-contractor corporation could not sue for breach of contract because the corporation was not licensed in NYC to do electrical work, even though plaintiff’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company (QNCC) which did the work as plaintiff corporation’s subcontractor was licensed:

Administrative Code § 27-3017(a) states that it shall be unlawful for any person to, inter alia, perform electrical work in the City of New York unless that person is a licensed master electrician or special electrician. Licensing statutes are to be strictly construed … . …

The plaintiff’s contention that recovery should not be denied because QNCC was a duly licensed subcontractor which performed the electrical work is without merit. This Court has previously held that such a relationship is insufficient to permit an unlicensed contractor to recover for work performed in the City … . “‘So strict has been judicial construction of the statutory requirement through concern for the public health and welfare that the requirement may not be satisfied by employing or subletting’ the work to an appropriately licensed person” … . Moreover, that the plaintiff’s vice president had a master electrician’s license, and that the defendant’s architect knew that the electrical work permits were issued to an entity other than the plaintiff, does not bar the application of the above rule … . Electrical Contr. Solutions Corp. v Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01907, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code requirement that electrical work must be done by licensed entities or persons is strictly construed. Here the electrical-contractor corporation’s vice president was licensed and the vice president’s company which did the work as a subcontractor was licensed, but the corporation was not. The corporation could not sue for breach of contract.

 

You might also like
THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED PLAINTIFF WOULD PAY DEFENDANT ABOUT $38,500 AND PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S REVENUE TOTALING ABOUT $52,500 WAS NOT A “LOAN” TO WHICH THE USURY DEFENSE COULD BE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER WHEN PIECES OF THE FACADE OF A BUILDING FELL AND KILLED HER TWO-YEAR-OLD GRANDCHILD, BECAUSE GRANDMOTHER IS NOT ‘IMMEDIATE FAMILY’ SHE CANNOT RECOVER UNDER A NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THEORY, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THAT THEORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED WITHOUT A WARRANT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER, SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE DEFEATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DEFENSE TO THE ALLEGED ORAL CONTRACT AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS HELD AS A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE PROVIDED FUNDS TO DEFENDANT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WHICH. PURSUANT TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT, WOULD BE TRANSFERRED BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION WAS IN CONTROVERSY, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEDICAL RECORDS CONCERNING SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED DISEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (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