From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 10, 1986
134 Misc. 2d 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1986)

Opinion

April 10, 1986

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, John Marmarellis, J.

Probstein Napolitano (Jon M. Probstein and Howard D. Leib of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas A. Williams for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

In our opinion, the plaintiff subcontractors, notwithstanding their failure to obtain a home improvement license, may enforce their contract against the defendant contractor, since the purpose of the requirement of a license is to "safeguard and protect the home owner" (Administrative Code of City of New York § B32-350.0; see also, Rosasco Creameries v Cohen, 276 N.Y. 274, 280; 12 N.Y. Jur 2d, Business and Occupations, § 43; cf. Zimmett v Professional Acoustics, 103 Misc.2d 971). We do not construe the term, "owner", as used in the code, to include a contractor vis-a-vis a subcontractor (see, Administrative Code § B32-351.0 [4]).

KASSOFF, J.P., MONTELEONE and LERNER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 10, 1986
134 Misc. 2d 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1986)
Case details for

Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID PARKER et al., Respondents, v. VISTA CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Apr 10, 1986

Citations

134 Misc. 2d 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1986)
511 N.Y.S.2d 458

Citing Cases

Marketing Specialists, Inc. v. Bruni

The Richards Conditioning rule is intended to deal with contracts between the unlicensed supplier and retail,…

Novogratz v. MIA Contracting, Inc.

In Lorenzo, the court ruled that an unlicensed sub-contractor could not maintain an action against a…