O'Mara Organization, Inc. v. Plehn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Mara Organization, Inc. v. Plehn

179 A.D.2d 548, 579 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 656

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 23, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The action was properly dismissed because of plaintiff’s lack of a license to undertake home improvements, as required by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-387 (a). Plaintiff’s argument that the statute does not apply since it acted only as defendant’s agent in coordinating and monitoring the renovations is without merit. First, plaintiff did perform some of the contracted labor itself. Second, the performance of services as a general contractor or project manager does not exempt persons engaged in the home improvement business from the licensing requirement (Zimmett v Professional Accoustics, 103 Misc 2d 971, 975-976). Finally, no view of the facts supports plaintiff’s contention that the home improvement services performed by it were consistent with a [549] commercial rather than residential use. Plaintiffs own correspondence acknowledged that the work was performed for defendant’s "new home” and "residence”. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

The action was properly dismissed because of plaintiff’s lack of a license to undertake home improvements, as required by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-387 (a). Plaintiff’s argument that the statute does not apply since it acted only as defendant’s agent in coordinating and monitoring the renovations is without merit. First, plaintiff did perform some of the contracted labor itself. Second, the performance of services as a general contractor or project manager does not exempt persons engaged in the home improvement business from the licensing requirement (Zimmett v Professional Accoustics, 103 Misc 2d 971, 975-976). Finally, no view of the facts supports plaintiff’s contention that the home improvement services performed by it were consistent with a [549] commercial rather than residential use. Plaintiffs own correspondence acknowledged that the work was performed for defendant’s "new home” and "residence”. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

O'Mara Organization, Inc. v. Plehn, 179 A.D.2d 548, 579 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

179 A.D.2d 548 (O'Mara Organization, Inc. v. Plehn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related