Opinion
2007-24 OR C.
Decided June 17, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered January 11, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint and awarded defendants the sum of $10,000 on their counterclaim.
Judgment modified by striking the award to defendants and providing that defendants' counterclaim is dismissed; as so modified, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
In this breach of contract action, plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to pay the $8,000 balance due on the purchase price of plaintiff's lease. Defendants interposed a counterclaim for the return of the amount of the downpayment previously paid, alleging that plaintiff's fraudulent oral representations — that defendants, as plaintiff's agent, would have temporary use of plaintiff's repair licenses, and that the business met the local zoning requirements for repairs — wrongfully induced defendants to enter into the contract to purchase plaintiff's lease. At a nonjury trial, defendant's representative testified that plaintiff agreed to leave its licenses for auto repair and auto sales posted on the premises so that defendants could operate their business under the auspices of plaintiff's licenses until defendants had obtained their own license. Plaintiff maintained that defendants took possession of the premises pursuant to a commercial lease and lease amendment. Plaintiff's witness denied that there was any oral agreement and testified that plaintiff's licenses could not remain on the property since the licenses were individual to the business and the person who applied for them. Defendants did not have their own applicable licenses. Plaintiff's witness further testified that the Town of Crawford Board had not approved use of the premises for auto repairs. Crediting the testimony of defendants' witnesses as to the terms of the agreement, the court determined that plaintiff breached the contract, dismissed the complaint and awarded defendants $10,000 on their counterclaim. Plaintiff's appeal ensued.
We find ample support in the record for the trial court's findings of fact and determinations of credibility. However, under the circumstances presented, the agreement, pursuant to which defendants would use plaintiff's licenses to operate their business, constituted an illegal contract ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 398-c). "Where the parties' arrangement is illegal, the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them" ( LoMagno v Koh, 246 AD2d 579 [1998] [internal citations omitted]).
In view of the foregoing, it was error for the court below to award judgment to defendants on their counterclaim. Accordingly, the judgment is modified by striking the award to defendants and providing that the counterclaim is dismissed.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.