From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pepe v. Tannenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2001
279 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 31, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 20, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and General Business Law § 771 to dismiss the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 7, 2000, which denied their motion for reargument.

Deutsch Sneider, Glendale, N.Y. (Eric G. Slepian of counsel), for appellants.

Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. (Marshall D. Sweetbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 7, 2000, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 20, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, commenced this action to recover payment for renovation work he allegedly performed on the defendants' residence based on an oral agreement and a written estimate. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that in the absence of a written agreement in compliance with General Business Law § 771, the plaintiff is precluded from any recovery.

Accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 1(a) (see, Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88), we agree with the Supreme Court that the complaint stated a cause of action to recover for the work allegedly performed based on a theory of quantum meruit (see, Frank v. Feiss, 266 A.D.2d 825; Conover, Inc. v. Waldorf, 251 A.D.2d 727; Mindich Developers v. Milstein, 227 A.D.2d 536). Further, the defendants failed to establish that a check they issued to the plaintiff constituted an accord and satisfaction barring this action (see, Merrill Lynch Realty/Carll Burr, Inc. v. Skinner, 63 N.Y.2d 590, 596).


Summaries of

Pepe v. Tannenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2001
279 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Pepe v. Tannenbaum

Case Details

Full title:VINCENZO PEPE, respondent, v. SHELDON TANNENBAUM, et al., appellants

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

Klee v. Americas Best Bottling Co.

Accordingly, the defendants' failure to timely pay the sum due under the settlement agreement entitled the…

ISLAND WIDE HEATING v. Sachs

Under the circumstances, even absent full compliance with General Business Law § 771, the subject contract…