Opinion
2010-1643 K C.
Decided May 23, 2011.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered December 15, 2009. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,880.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Plaintiff, who was not licensed to perform home improvements, brought this action to recover payment for work he had performed painting defendant's apartment, as well as preparing the apartment for painting. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment to plaintiff, upon a finding that plaintiff was a day laborer rather than an independent contractor.
Although Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-387 precludes unlicensed persons from, among other things, selling, performing or obtaining home improvement contracts, painting and decorating services are specifically excluded from the home improvement licensure requirement:
"Home improvement' means the construction, repair, replacement, remodeling, alteration, conversion, rehabilitation, renovation, modernization, improvement, or addition to any land or building, or that portion thereof which is used or designed to be used as a dwelling place . . . Home improvement' shall not include . . . (iv) painting or decorating of a building, residence, home or apartment, when not incidental or related to home improvement work as herein defined . . ." (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386 [2]; see also Raywood Assocs. v Seibel, 172 AD2d 154 [1991] [holding that, "No license is required for merely decorative work such as painting]).
Work incidental to painting likewise does not require a license ( see Penna, Inc. v Ruben, 72 AD3d 523; see also Coggeshall Painting Restoration Co. v Zetlin, 282 AD2d 364).
As the sole basis argued for reversal of the Civil Court's judgment is plaintiff's lack of a license to perform home improvements, and as no license was required for plaintiff to perform the work he did for defendant, we affirm the judgment.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.