Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the defendant's alleged failure to fully pay for home improvement work which the plaintiff performed at the defendant's residences in New York City and Connecticut. However, the plaintiff concedes that at the time it performed the work, it was neither licensed as a home improvement contractor in New York City nor had it been issued a certificate of registration to perform home improvements by the Connecticut Commissioner of Consumer Affairs (see, Administrative Code of City of N Y § 20-387 [a]; Conn Gen Stat § 20-420 [a]; § 20-427 [b]). The failure of the plaintiff to possess such a license and certificate of registration precludes any recovery for the home improvement work it performed at the defendant's two residences (see, B F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 N.Y.2d 689; Community Natl. Bank Trust Co. v McClammy, 138 A.D.2d 339; Barret Bldrs. v Miller, 215 Conn. 316, 576 A.2d 455; Design Dev. v Brignole, 20 Conn. App. 685, 570 A.2d 221). Nor may the plaintiff avoid dismissal of the complaint based upon the allegation that the defendant "knew of the lack of [the plaintiff's] license and planned to take advantage of its absence" (Chosen Constr. Corp. v Syz, 138 A.D.2d 284, 286). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.