From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstein v. Gerbano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1990
158 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 26, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs Judy and Robert Goldstein entered into two contracts with the defendant. In the first contract, the defendant orally agreed to design and select furnishings for the plaintiffs' den and bedroom. The plaintiffs paid the defendant the aggregate sum of $30,138.47 in connection with this contract. The second contract called for the construction of a closet extension and the defendant agreed, inter alia, to supply the necessary labor and materials. The defendant was given a deposit of $10,400 pursuant to this contract and was allegedly requested to commence work immediately.

The evidence adduced at trial, however, established that although a period of more than one year had elapsed since the parties entered into the contracts, the plaintiff received only $4,000 worth of home furnishings and accessories. The record further discloses that the defendant did not perform any construction work under the closet extension contract, a fact which he conceded at the trial. Additional evidence was elicited which revealed that the furniture ordered by the defendant was never paid for and that the defendant, in fact, spent all of the moneys he had received from the plaintiffs.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind the contracts and to recover the amounts designated in the judgment as a result of the defendant's failure to perform (see, Babylon Assocs. v County of Suffolk, 101 A.D.2d 207). We further note that since the defendant was not licensed as a home improvement contractor (see, Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.2), he is precluded from obtaining recovery under his counterclaim for damages and storage costs (see, Todisco v Econopouly, 155 A.D.2d 441; Bujas v Katz, 133 A.D.2d 730).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goldstein v. Gerbano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1990
158 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Goldstein v. Gerbano

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT GOLDSTEIN et al., Respondents, v. BEN GERBANO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 44

Citing Cases

Schwartz v. Torrenzano

Caselaw evolved to permit restitution for payments previously made for work that the unlicensed home…

Schwartz v. Torrenzano

This notion of the illegality of the underlying contract and the refusal to aid a wrongdoer, as expressed in…