Opinion
August 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that a contractor who fails to possess and plead a valid license as required by relevant local laws may neither sue to recover damages for breach of a construction contract by a consumer nor recover in quantum meruit (see, CPLR 3015 [e]; B F Bldg. Corp. v. Liebig, 76 N.Y.2d 689; Ellis v. Gold, 204 A.D.2d 261; Hughes Hughes Contr. Corp. v. Coughlan, 202 A.D.2d 476; Primo Constr. v. Stahl, 161 A.D.2d 516; Todisco v. Econopouly, 155 A.D.2d 441). We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the home improvement services provided by the appellant fell within the relevant provisions of the Code of the Town of Southampton, and therefore he was required to be licensed (see, O'Mara Org. v. Plehn, 179 A.D.2d 548). As the appellant did not possess, nor does he plead, the requisite license, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in Action No. 1 insofar as asserted on his behalf, and his counterclaims in Action No. 2.
Miller, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.