Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet

New York Court of Appeals

Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet

236 N.E.2d 639, 21 N.Y.2d 895, 289 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1531

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by44 cases

This text of 236 N.E.2d 639 (Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet, 236 N.E.2d 639, 21 N.Y.2d 895, 289 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1531 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, without costs, and the complaint dismissed in the following memorandum: The finding of substantial performance is supported by the record. However, plaintiff cannot recover on the agreement since the installation was not licensed and since it employed unlicensed personnel to install the air conditioning system. The air conditioning system is a “ refrigerating system ” within the meaning of chapter 93 of the General Ordinances of the City of Mount Vernon and, therefore, may not be installed by unlicensed persons. Since the purpose of the regulatory scheme is to protect the public health and safety, lack of an installer’s license- bars recovery [897]*897on the agreement (Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354; see, e.g., Ann. Business License—Failure to Procure, 82 ALR 2d 1429, 1450 et seq.; 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 580, subd. [2], par. [d]; 6A Corbin, Contracts, § 1512; cf. Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274, 280).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

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

Order reversed, without costs, and the complaint dismissed in the following memorandum: The finding of substantial performance is supported by the record. However, plaintiff cannot recover on the agreement since the installation was not licensed and since it employed unlicensed personnel to install the air conditioning system. The air conditioning system is a “ refrigerating system ” within the meaning of chapter 93 of the General Ordinances of the City of Mount Vernon and, therefore, may not be installed by unlicensed persons. Since the purpose of the regulatory scheme is to protect the public health and safety, lack of an installer’s license- bars recovery [897]*897on the agreement (Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354; see, e.g., Ann. Business License—Failure to Procure, 82 ALR 2d 1429, 1450 et seq.; 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 580, subd. [2], par. [d]; 6A Corbin, Contracts, § 1512; cf. Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274, 280).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 N.E.2d 639, 21 N.Y.2d 895, 289 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-conditioning-corp-v-oleet-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack