Stardial Communications Corp. v. Turner Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stardial Communications Corp. v. Turner Construction Co.

12 A.D.3d 181, 784 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 181 (Stardial Communications Corp. v. Turner Construction Co.) 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

Stardial Communications Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 12 A.D.3d 181, 784 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered April 30, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the motion of defendant Big Apple Wrecking & Construction Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages allegedly attributable to the [182]*182destruction of certain architectural artifacts to which it had obtained salvage rights by contract. In support of its summary judgment motion, defendant Big Apple contends that the salvage contract upon which plaintiff relies is illegal and unenforceable because plaintiff is not a licensed dealer in second-hand articles (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-265). This defense is not viable. Even if the salvage activity contemplated by the contract would have entailed plaintiffs violation of the cited Code provision, that would not under the circumstances presented entitle Big Apple to avoid liability. In the instant case, violation of a Code provision would not be malum in se, but merely malum prohibitum, punishable by means of prescribed regulatory sanctions. The Code may not be used as a sword for private gain in litigation, particularly where forfeiture would result (see Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124 [1992]). Moreover, it is by no means clear that plaintiffs salvage of architectural artifacts would have violated the Code. While previous administrative determinations have upheld penalties imposed upon plaintiff for conducting unlicensed second-hand articles businesses, these do not collaterally estop plaintiff from arguing here that a second-hand article dealer’s license was not needed to salvage architectural ornamentation from a building that was to be demolished. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered April 30, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the motion of defendant Big Apple Wrecking & Construction Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages allegedly attributable to the [182]*182destruction of certain architectural artifacts to which it had obtained salvage rights by contract. In support of its summary judgment motion, defendant Big Apple contends that the salvage contract upon which plaintiff relies is illegal and unenforceable because plaintiff is not a licensed dealer in second-hand articles (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-265). This defense is not viable. Even if the salvage activity contemplated by the contract would have entailed plaintiffs violation of the cited Code provision, that would not under the circumstances presented entitle Big Apple to avoid liability. In the instant case, violation of a Code provision would not be malum in se, but merely malum prohibitum, punishable by means of prescribed regulatory sanctions. The Code may not be used as a sword for private gain in litigation, particularly where forfeiture would result (see Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124 [1992]). Moreover, it is by no means clear that plaintiffs salvage of architectural artifacts would have violated the Code. While previous administrative determinations have upheld penalties imposed upon plaintiff for conducting unlicensed second-hand articles businesses, these do not collaterally estop plaintiff from arguing here that a second-hand article dealer’s license was not needed to salvage architectural ornamentation from a building that was to be demolished. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 181, 784 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stardial-communications-corp-v-turner-construction-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack