Opinion
2009-2592 W C.
Decided August 11, 2011.
Appeal from an order of the City Court of Rye, Westchester County (Richard N. Runes, J.), entered February 3, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss the action is granted.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ.
In this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,981.25 for work performed on defendant's home, defendant moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction; (2) that defendant contracted in writing with, and the work was performed by, a party other than plaintiff; and (3) plaintiff was barred from recovery pursuant to article 36-A of the General Business Law. The City Court denied the unopposed motion.
Upon a review of the record, we find that the City Court's order did not provide defendant with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Based upon all of the facts of this case, we find that the motion should have been granted on the ground that it was undisputed that plaintiff neither had a contractual relationship with defendant nor did plaintiff perform the work. Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion to dismiss the action is granted.
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.