From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 19, 1990
160 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 19, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.).


Plaintiff, although claiming to have undertaken only home redecorating and refurnishing for a home in Nassau County, in substance contracted to undertake home improvement (see, County Government Law of Nassau County, tit D-1, § 21-11.13). Plaintiff is not licensed to contract for home improvement in Nassau County, nor, does it appear, anywhere else. Consequently, plaintiff is barred from maintaining an action either in breach of contract or quantum meruit (Chosen Constr. Corp. v. Syz, 138 A.D.2d 284; Todisco v. Econopouly, 155 A.D.2d 441). The fact that plaintiff's subcontractors might have been licensed as to their crafts is irrelevant (County Government Law of Nassau County § 21-11.3). We have examined plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 19, 1990
160 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

Case Details

Full title:HESTER DIAMOND, INC., Appellant, v. HAROLD TEPLITZ et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 19, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 200

Citing Cases

Toulouse v. Chandler

For example, in cases in which the general contractors did not perform any of the home improvement work and…

Hester Diamond, Inc. v. Teplitz

Decided November 20, 1990 Appeal from (1st Dept: 160 A.D.2d 549) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…