Opinion
April 2, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pecora, J.).
Summary judgment is precluded by triable issues of fact as to whether some of the services provided by Raywood Associates to the defendants constitute a "home improvement" within the definition of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386 (2). It is apparent that some of the services rendered herein may be either home improvement or decorative. Plaintiff's failure to obtain a home improvement license precludes recovery for permanent improvements to the physical plant (Primo Constr. v. Stahl, 161 A.D.2d 516). No license is required for merely decorative additions such as painting, installation of appliances, and the arrangement of furniture and decorative objects.
Craig Raywood, individually, was properly joined as a party, since the corporation was not yet formed on the date that the parties entered into that contract.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.