Savitt v. Lambrakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Savitt v. Lambrakis

226 A.D.2d 520, 640 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364

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

DecidedApril 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 520 (Savitt v. Lambrakis) 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

Savitt v. Lambrakis, 226 A.D.2d 520, 640 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages pursuant to a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3015 (e) and 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action due to the plaintiffs’ failure to plead that they were duly licensed home improvement contractors (see, CPLR 3015 [e]; 3211 [a] [7]). The evidence established that the agreement entered into by the parties was not a home improvement contract (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.1 [4]), and that the plaintiffs were not home improvement contractors (see, American Fire Restoration v Gdanski, 216 AD2d 429). Accordingly, the plaintiffs were not required to be [521]*521licensed (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.2). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages pursuant to a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3015 (e) and 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action due to the plaintiffs’ failure to plead that they were duly licensed home improvement contractors (see, CPLR 3015 [e]; 3211 [a] [7]). The evidence established that the agreement entered into by the parties was not a home improvement contract (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.1 [4]), and that the plaintiffs were not home improvement contractors (see, American Fire Restoration v Gdanski, 216 AD2d 429). Accordingly, the plaintiffs were not required to be [521]*521licensed (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.2). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 520, 640 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savitt-v-lambrakis-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack