Altered Structure, Inc. v Solkin

[*1] Altered Structure, Inc. v Solkin 2005 NYSlipOp 50874(U) Decided on June 8, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 8, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570228/04

Altered Structure, Inc. and MICHAEL DESANTO d/b/a ALTERED STRUCTURE, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against

Mindy Solkin, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered April 2, 2003 after a nonjury trial (Eileen N. Nadelson, J.) in favor of plaintiffs, and awarding them damages in the principal sum of $21,350.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment entered April 2, 2003 (Eileen N. Nadelson, J.) modified to delete the provision thereof which awarded damages to plaintiff Altered Structure, Inc. and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted on its behalf; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

Although the absence of a written agreement between the parties bars the individual plaintiff's recovery upon breach of contract (see General Business Law § 771), the plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, nonetheless was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the renovation work shown to have been rendered at defendant's request based upon quantum meruit (see Precision Foundations v Ives, 4 AD3d 589 [2004]). Despite the [*2]lack of direct evidence of the reasonable value of the work performed, the parties' oral agreement, together with the plaintiff's itemized billing statements, furnishes sufficient evidence of such value (see Frank v Feiss, 266 AD2d 825, 826 [1999]). We modify only to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it seeks recovery for home improvement work rendered by the corporate plaintiff, there being no showing that it was licensed to perform home improvements at any relevant time (see Administration Code of City of New York, § 20-387; B&F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689, 691-692 [1990]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Decision Date: June 08, 2005