Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

160 A.D.2d 549, 554 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 19, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 549 (Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz) 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

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz, 160 A.D.2d 549, 554 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered January 27, 1989, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the judgment of said court entered thereon on July 7, 1989 are unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, although claiming to have undertaken only home redecorating and refurnishing for a home in Nassau County, in substance contracted to undertake home improvement (see, County Government Law of Nassau County, tit D-l, § 21-11.13). Plaintiff is not licensed to contract for home improvement in Nassau County, nor, does it appear, anywhere else. Consequently, plaintiff is barred from maintaining an action either in breach of contract or quantum meruit (Chosen Constr. Corp. v Syz, 138 AD2d 284; Todisco v Econopouly, 155 AD2d 441). The fact that plaintiff’s subcontractors might have [550]*550been licensed as to their crafts is irrelevant (County Government Law of Nassau County § 21-11.3). We have examined plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered January 27, 1989, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the judgment of said court entered thereon on July 7, 1989 are unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, although claiming to have undertaken only home redecorating and refurnishing for a home in Nassau County, in substance contracted to undertake home improvement (see, County Government Law of Nassau County, tit D-l, § 21-11.13). Plaintiff is not licensed to contract for home improvement in Nassau County, nor, does it appear, anywhere else. Consequently, plaintiff is barred from maintaining an action either in breach of contract or quantum meruit (Chosen Constr. Corp. v Syz, 138 AD2d 284; Todisco v Econopouly, 155 AD2d 441). The fact that plaintiff’s subcontractors might have [550]*550been licensed as to their crafts is irrelevant (County Government Law of Nassau County § 21-11.3). We have examined plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 549, 554 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hester-diamond-inc-v-teplitz-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack