Nassau Suffolk Lbr. & Supply Corp. v Muldoon

[*1] Nassau Suffolk Lbr. & Supply Corp. v Muldoon 2016 NY Slip Op 51242(U) Decided on August 10, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 10, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ.
2015-1161 S C

Nassau Suffolk Lumber & Supply Corp., Appellant,

against

Donald Muldoon, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered December 22, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $4,500 for work, labor, services and materials furnished to defendant, relating to the installation of windows at defendant's home. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish that it was a licensed home improvement contractor.

General Business Law § 770 (6) defines a home improvement contract as an agreement which "includes all labor, services and materials to be furnished by the home improvement contractor" (see also Code of Suffolk County § 563-16). Code of Suffolk County § 563-17 (A) makes it "unlawful for any person to engage in any business as a home improvement contractor without obtaining a license therefor from the office [of the Department of Consumer Affairs]." It is well settled that "an unlicensed contractor forfeits the right to recover damages based either on breach of contract or quantum meruit" (Quick Start Constr. Corp. v Staigers, 77 AD3d 900, 900 [2010] [citations omitted]; see B & F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689 [1990]; Richards Conditioning Corp. v Bleet, 21 NY2d 895 [1968]; Golfo v Sopher, 253 AD2d 479 [1998]). As plaintiff failed to establish at trial that it was a licensed home improvement contractor (see Quick Start Const. Corp., 77 AD3d at 900), the District Court properly dismissed the complaint.

We do not consider any factual assertions or materials annexed to plaintiff's brief which are dehors the record.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: August 10, 2016