You are here: / / PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSES OF ACTION TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN AND BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract action brought by defendant home improvement contractor should have been granted because the complaint did not allege plaintiff was licensed as a home improvement contractor:

… [The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the parties had cohabited and shared an intimate relationship over a period of approximately two years, and that the plaintiff had performed extensive home improvement contracting work on the defendant’s residence in Rockland County during that period in reliance on the defendant’s promise that he would be reimbursed for the work following the impending sale of the residence. Claiming that the defendant had subsequently reneged on their arrangement, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien he had filed against the residence, to recover damages for breach of contract, to recover in quantum meruit, and to impose a constructive trust over the residence. The defendant thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. …

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the licensing requirement of CPLR 3015(e) did not apply herein. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he clearly engaged in home improvement contracting work, and he conceded that the cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien could not survive the defendant’s challenge pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. Moreover, the complaint did not allege that he was duly licensed in Rockland County during the relevant time period (see Code of the County of Rockland, chapter 286, § 3), and the plaintiff never disputed that he did not possess the necessary license. Thus, the causes of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, to recover damages for breach of contract, and to recover in quantum meruit should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … .Cunningham v Nolte, 2020 NY Slip Op 06493, Second Dept 11=12=20

 

You might also like
DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
TWO YOUNG MEN DID NOT REALIZE THE CONCRETE THEY WERE MOVING WAS A CESSPOOL COVER; ONE FELL IN AND THE OTHER JUMPED IN TO RESCUE HIM; BOTH DIED FROM CHEMICAL ASPHYXIATION; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE COVER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE CESSPOOL CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THE RESCUE ATTEMPT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained
THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT UPON FILING A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING; THE INSTANT ACTION IS THEREFORE TIMELY BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE INSTANT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under CPLR 301 or 302, Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
HANDWRITTEN PROVISION OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONTROLS, THE LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT, BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BENEFIT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS UNIDENTIFIED (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

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FIRED AFTER REJECTING THE SEXUAL ADVANCES OF HER MANAGER...