Opinion
June 24, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff's complaint alleges various causes of action arising from certain home improvement work the plaintiff performed in Westchester County at the defendants' residence. Administrative Code of the County of Westchester § 863.313 states, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person shall maintain, conduct * * * or engage in a home improvement business within the County of Westchester * * * unless such person is licensed pursuant to this article". It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not have a home improvement contractor's license under the Code.
The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3015 (e) and 3211 (a) (7) on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have a license. The Supreme Court denied the motion, reasoning that even though the plaintiff performed home improvement work in Westchester County, the Code's licensing requirement was inapplicable since the plaintiff did not maintain its business in that County.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the Code is applicable here since, by performing home improvement work in Westchester County, the plaintiff was clearly "conduct[ing]" or "engag[ing]" in a home improvement business there (Administrative Code of County of Westchester § 863.313). Inasmuch as the complaint does not allege that the plaintiff was licensed under the Administrative Code of the County of Westchester, the court should have granted the defendants' motion to dismiss ( see, CPLR 3015 [e]; 3211 [a] [7]; see also, Matter of Scaturro v M.C.S. Landscape, 212 A.D.2d 798, 799; Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet, 21 N.Y.2d 895; Ellis v. Gold, 204 A.D.2d 261; Millington v. Rapoport, 98 A.D.2d 765).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are lacking in merit ( cf., Ermont Assocs. v. Battenfeld, 210 A.D.2d 293; Hughes Hughes Contr. Corp. v. Coughlan, 202 A.D.2d 476, 477; Chosen Constr. Corp. v. Syz, 138 A.D.2d 284, 286). Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.