Home/Civil Court of the City of New York/Buffoleno v. Denning

Buffoleno v. Denning

82 Misc. 2d 472, 369 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2708
CourtCivil Court of the City of New York
DecidedMay 27, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 82 Misc. 2d 472 (Buffoleno v. Denning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buffoleno v. Denning, 82 Misc. 2d 472, 369 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2708 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1975).

Opinion

Theodore Alexander Bardy, J.

The defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint containing two causes of action on the ground that the plaintiff was an unlicensed contractor.

The court has read the papers submitted by counsel for the respective parties and the cases cited therein. (See, also, Galbreath — Ruffin Corp. v 40th & 3rd Corp., 19 NY2d 354; Richards Conditioning Corp. v Oleet, 21 NY2d 895; Griffin v Cafarelli, 38 AD2d 847; Wineman v Blueprint 100, 75 Misc 2d 665; East Coast Moving & Stor. v Flappin, 78 Misc 2d 140; Assos Home Improvement v Terrebetzky Civ Ct, Queens County, Index No. 40017/1974, April 9, 1975, Naro, J.)

It is the opinion of this court that plaintiff’s failure to obtain the requisite license in accordance with the provisions of section B32-352.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, is fatally defective and precludes plaintiff from obtaining the aid of this court to enforce his claim for labor and/or material supplied in connection with the renovation, either in contract or quantum meruit.

The city council in enacting the legislation requiring the licensing of persons engaged in the home improvement, remodeling and repair business, did so under its police power to legislate for the safety and protection of the public.

To allow plaintiff to use this court to enforce such agreement or to collect for material or labor in quantum meruit, would be to emasculate the effectiveness of the legislation promulgated by the city council and to perpetuate the evil which it seeks to eliminate.

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carrea & Sons, Inc. v. Hemmerdinger
42 Misc. 3d 791 (Rye City Court, 2013)
Ellis v. Gold
204 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Estates Roofing Co. v. Homeowner
121 Misc. 2d 279 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1983)
Dartmouth Plan, Inc. v. Valle
117 Misc. 2d 534 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
In re the Arbitration between Schwartz & American Swim Pools
74 A.D.2d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Anton Sattler, Inc. v. Cummings
103 Misc. 2d 4 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Gargano v. Smith
97 Misc. 2d 535 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Misc. 2d 472, 369 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buffoleno-v-denning-nycivct-1975.