Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.

134 Misc. 2d 1, 511 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3045

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 Misc. 2d 1 (Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Vista Construction Concepts, Inc., 134 Misc. 2d 1, 511 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

In our opinion, the plaintiff subcontractors, notwithstanding their failure to obtain a home improvement license, may enforce their contract against the defendant contractor, since the purpose of the requirement of a license is to "safeguard and protect the home owner” (Administrative Code of City of New York § B32-350.0; see also, Rosasco Creameries v Cohen, 276 NY 274, 280; 12 NY Jur 2d, Business and Occupations, § 43; cf. Zimmett v Professional Acoustics, 103 Misc 2d 971). We do not construe the term, "owner”, as used in the code, to include a contractor vis-á-vis a subcontractor (see, Administrative Code § B32-351.0 [4]).

Kassoff, J. P., Monteleone and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

In our opinion, the plaintiff subcontractors, notwithstanding their failure to obtain a home improvement license, may enforce their contract against the defendant contractor, since the purpose of the requirement of a license is to "safeguard and protect the home owner” (Administrative Code of City of New York § B32-350.0; see also, Rosasco Creameries v Cohen, 276 NY 274, 280; 12 NY Jur 2d, Business and Occupations, § 43; cf. Zimmett v Professional Acoustics, 103 Misc 2d 971). We do not construe the term, "owner”, as used in the code, to include a contractor vis-á-vis a subcontractor (see, Administrative Code § B32-351.0 [4]).

Kassoff, J. P., Monteleone and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 Misc. 2d 1, 511 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-vista-construction-concepts-inc-nyappterm-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack