Veltri v Platzner Intl. Group, Ltd.

[*1] Veltri v Platzner Intl. Group, Ltd. 2005 NYSlipOp 50575(U) Decided on April 18, 2005 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 18, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-302 W C

Frank Veltri Jr., d/b/a J.J. MORRIS, Appellant-Respondent,

against

Platzner International Group, Ltd., Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle, Westchester County (G. Rice, J.), entered on March 26, 2004, as dismissed his complaint after trial, and cross appeal by defendant from so much of the same judgment as dismissed its counterclaims.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Defendant, a managing agent of apartment buildings, hired plaintiff to perform plumbing work in Westchester County. It is uncontroverted that plaintiff was not licensed as a plumber by the County of Westchester when he performed said services. The threshold issue to be addressed is whether plaintiff is barred from recovering for work performed on the ground that he was not licensed by Westchester County. We [*2]
find that plaintiff's action is not barred since the regulatory scheme applicable in this case (Westchester County Code § 277.503) does not affect the validity of a commercial contract (see Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating (Dakar Developers), 232 AD2d 62, 66 [1997]). We note that CPLR 3015 (e) is likewise no bar to the action since the work performed by plaintiff was for a commercial enterprise as opposed to a consumer (see Toulouse v Chandler, 5 Misc 3d 1005[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51211[U]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at trial failed to establish an accord and satisfaction of plaintiff's bills. In our view, a fair interpretation of the evidence establishes that defendant unilaterally sought to modify the terms of the invoices. Notwithstanding the foregoing, plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed since he failed to establish at trial the reasonable value of his services. With respect to its counterclaims, defendant failed to establish the extent of the alleged damages sustained in repairing the work performed by plaintiff and defendant raised no issue on appeal regarding its counterclaim for rent due. Thus, there is no basis to disturb the judgment of the court below.
Decision Date: April 18, 2005