Good-Will Mech. Corp. v Kellam

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Good-Will Mech. Corp. v Kellam 2022 NY Slip Op 33328(U) October 3, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157456/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 157456/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. MARY V. ROSADO 33 Justice X GOOD-WILL MECHANICAL CORP., INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. RICHARD KELLAM, ARCAP, LC, LV PROPERTY TVVO, LLC,LV PROPERTY THREE, LLC,JOHN DOES NO. 1 -10 157456/2021 12/15/2021 001 OECISION + ORDERON MOTION Defendant. --'--------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS Upon the foregoing documents, and oral argument which took place on July 28, 2022 \ where Eric P. Schutzer, Esq. appeared on behalf of Good-Will Mechanical Corp. ("Plaintiff') and Sloan Zakheim, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants Richard Kellam ("Kellam"), ARCAP, LC ("ARCAP"), LV Property Two, LLC, and LV Property Three, LLC (collectively "Defendants"), Defendants motion to dismiss is granted. I. Factual and Procedural Background This action arises out of construction work done by Plaintiff on property owned by Defendants located at 22 Charlton Street, New York, New York (the "Property") (NYSCEF Doc. 1). Plaintiff is seeking to foreclose on a mechanic's lien in the amount of $39,150.00, or in the alternative recoup that amount via other causes of action including breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, and violations of the General Business Law (id.). Defendants have filed this pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) (NYSCEF Doc. 4). Defendants move to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a valid home improvement ("HI") license 157456/2021 GOOD-WILL MECHANICAL CORP. vs. KELLAM, RICHARD ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 1] 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 157456/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2022 while it performed work on the property and therefore is precluded from seeking recovery against Defendants under any legal theory. Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2018 it entered into a written contract With Kellam and I ARCAP whereby Plaintiff agreed to install HV AC in the building ~or $118,500.00 (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at ,r 10). Plaintiff alleges it completed this work between January 2, 2018 and March 27, 2020 (id at ,r 11). However, according to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff in full (id at ,r 14). Therefore, Plaintiff filed a mechanics lien on October 15, 2020 (id at ,r 15). Plaintiff did not have a home improvement license while it worked on the Property (NYSCEF Doc. 11 ). II. Discussion When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must give Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings and determine only_ whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236,239 [2021]). All factual allegations must be accepted as true (Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landmark Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 172, 174 [1st Dept 2004]). Conclusory allegations or claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (Godfreyv Spano, 13 NY3d 358,373 [2009]; Barnes v Hodge, 118 AD3d 633, 633-634 [1st Dept 2014]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]). Defendants assert numerous grounds to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. First, Defendant claims that since Plaintiff installed HVAC in violation of NYC Admin Code§ 20-387(a), Plaintiff is barred from recovering under any legal theory (Blake Elec. Contr. Co. v Paschall, 222 AD2d 264, 266 [l st Dept 1995]). Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not pied its licensing 157456/2021 GOOD-WILL MECHANICAL CORP. vs. KELLAM, RICHARD ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 2] 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 157456/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2022 requirements in conforman ce with CPLR § 3015(e). Finally, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs lien is fatally defective per Lien Law§§ 9-10. Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss by arguing that NYC Admin. Code § 20-387(a) applies only to home improveme nt contractors and does not apply to work performed for real estate developers or general contractors, and since Defendants were acting as real estate developers/general contractors, § 20-387(a) does not apply. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that because Kellam does not occupy the building, and the building is owned by two LLCS set up by Kellam, he cannot be considered the type of individual who § 20-387(a) was meant to protect. In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cites no binding and persuasive case law supporting its interpretati on of the proper application of§ 20-387(a), and that in any event, Kellam has clearly stated that he intends to reside in the Building after the renovation s of the premises are complete (NYSCEF Doc. 19). Kellam also asserts that he is the 100& owp.er of ARCAP, L V Property Two, LLC, and L V Property Three, LLC and that these LLCs were set up simply to renovate and to purchase the home (id.). NYC Admin Code§ 20-387(a) defines "home improveme nt" as "the construction, repair, replacement, remodeling , alteration, conversion rehabilitation, renovation , modernization, improvement, or addition to any and or building, or that portion thereof which is used or designed to be used as a residence of dwelling place .... " NYC Admin Code§ 20-386(4) defines an owner as "any other person who orders, contracts for or purchases the home improveme nt services of a contractor or the person entitled to the performance of the work of a contractor." An unlicensed contractor may neither enforce a home improveme nt contract against nor seek quantum meruit, and a contractor is barred from enforcing a contract if its license is not issued 157456/2021 GOOD-WILL MECHANICAL CORP. vs. KELLAM, RICHARD ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 3] 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 INDEX NO. 157456/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2022 until after the work is completed (Metrobuild Asssociates, Inc. v Nahoum, 51 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2008]; Blake Elec. Contracting Co., Inc. v Paschall, 222 AD2d 264,266 [1st Dept 1995]). Ba.sed on the pleadings, Plaintiff alleges it entered into a contract with Kellam (id. at ,i 10). Plaintiff admits in its pleadings that Kellam owns and controls Defendants L VP2 and L VP3 who own the property (id. at ,i 3). Kellam has substantiated this via affidavit in support of Defendants motion to dismiss by testifying that he is the 100% owner of L VP2 and L VP3 and they were set up solely to purchase the property and hold title on his behalf (NYSCEF Doc. 19). Kellam also testified in support of his motion to dismiss that he intends to reside in the Property (NYSCEF Doc. 6). The certificate of occupancy clearly shows the building is residential and as such the construction done by Good Will qualifies as "home improvement" (NYSCEF Doc. 9). Therefore, since Kellam owns the property, intends to reside in the property, and contracted with Plaintiff for home improvement services while Plaintiff was an unlicensed home improvement contractor, Plaintiff cannot enforce its contract against Defendants. Although Plaintiff asserts that Kellam cannot be protected by NYC Admin. Code§ 20-387(a) because he was not residing in the Property, the Court disagrees, as this exception create a gaping hole in a law designed to protect consumers simply by virtue of a consumer's home being uninhabitable due to ongoing construction. In any event, Plaintiff's argument is also flatly contradicted by binding precedent (Mortise v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 102 AD2d 719 [1st Dept 1984] ["contracts to convert office building for use as cooperative apartments involved "home improvement" within meaning of city administrative code, and thus, construction company's failure to obtain license from city to engage in business of home improvement rendered contract unenforceable". Moreover, Plaintiff has not complied with the pleading requirements of CPLR 3015(e) which places the burden of pleading a required license on the contractor plaintiff (B&F Bldg. Corp. 157456/2021 GOOD-WILL MECHANICAL CORP. vs. KELLAM, RICHARD ET AL Motion Np. 001 [* 4] 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5 INDEX NO. 157456/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2022 v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689, 693 [1990]). Further, Plaintiff has not pled in its Complain t that the construction was for a commercial purpose to ostensibly take its action outside the scope of NYC Admin. Code§ 20-387(a). As such, the pleadings do not allow for an enforceable right ofrecove ry, and therefore the Complain t should be dismissed (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERE D that Plaintiff s Complaint against Defendants is dismissed in its entirety. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 10/3/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: HON. x CASE DISPOSED x GRANTED • NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIAT E: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMEN T 157~56/2021 GOOD-WILL MECHANIC AL CORP. vs. KELLAM, RICHARD ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 5] ARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. 5 of 5 • • OTHER REFERENCE Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.