Callos, Inc. v. Julianelli

300 A.D.2d 612, 752 N.Y.S.2d 398
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 612 (Callos, Inc. v. Julianelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Callos, Inc. v. Julianelli, 300 A.D.2d 612, 752 N.Y.S.2d 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action, [613]*613inter alia, to foreclose mechanic’s liens, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kit-son, J.), entered February 27, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court entered November 14, 2001, granting the motion of the defendants Jane Julianelli and South Woods, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against them and discharged the mechanic’s liens.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that licensing statutes are to be strictly construed, and that an unlicensed contractor forfeits the right to recover damages based either on breach of contract or on quantum meruit, as well as the right to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien (see B & F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689; Ellis v Gold, 204 AD2d 261; Todisco v Econopouly, 155 AD2d 441; George Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal, 72 AD2d 593).

The defendants Jane Julianelli and South Woods, Inc., established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by establishing that the plaintiff was not licensed to perform home improvements in the Town of East Hampton when the contract was signed or when the work was performed, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Ellis v Gold, supra; George Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mikoma Elec., LLC v. Otek Bldrs., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 06332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Brightside Home Improvements, Inc. v. Northeast Home Improvement Servs.
208 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Quick Start Construction Corp. v. Staiger
77 A.D.3d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Pryor v. Fisher (In Re Dimino)
429 B.R. 408 (E.D. New York, 2010)
Marraccini v. Ryan
71 A.D.3d 1100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Hardy Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Menu
65 A.D.3d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Nicotra v. Manger
64 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Racwell Constr., LLC v. Manfredi
61 A.D.3d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
LGP Foundations, Inc. v. Bantry
60 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hakimi v. Cantwell Landscaping & Design, Inc.
50 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Flax v. Hommel
40 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ben Krupinski Builder & Associates, Inc. v. Baum
36 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
J.G. Cerasuolo Construction, Inc. v. Tyler
35 A.D.3d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Intrepid Electrical Contracting Co. v. Serure
34 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 612, 752 N.Y.S.2d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callos-inc-v-julianelli-nyappdiv-2002.