The above-captioned small claims actions have been consolidated for determination. Each of the three plaintiffs was engaged by the defendant to perform work at his residence located in Briarcliff Manor. Specifically, as acknowledged by Mr. Wolf, each of the plaintiffs was hired for the purpose of renovating a barn on the defendant’s property, which was more than 100 years old. The work entailed substantial renovations to the exterior of the structure including the replacement of the rotted wood exterior, as well as substantial repairs to the interior including plumbing, tiling and woodwork. The foregoing work was largely performed by plaintiffs, Falconieri and Williams, commencing in August of 2002 until approximately February 17, 2003 when Mr. Wolf advised the plaintiffs he would no longer be utilizing their services. Mr. Stefanelli was hired during the same time frame to perform excavation work. Specifically in September 2002, Mr. Stefanelli created footings, removed existing footings for a wall and walkway, created a trench for a water line and an electrical line, removed stumps, spread soil and seeded and fertilized. Mr. Williams, also during the course of the winter, performed some snow plowing work. Mr. Falconieri claims that there are unpaid bills for materials totaling $200 and for labor payable at $25 an hour, totaling $1,446. Mr. Falconieri could not produce the invoice for the unpaid materials, so he waived that claim and the claim is predicated entirely on unpaid labor. Mr. Williams’ claims totals $2,046 and is comprised of $1,000 unpaid labor, $500 for snow plowing after a blizzard during the winter of 2002 and $546 for miscellaneous materials. For his part, Mr. Wolf is counterclaiming that the work was of sub-standard quality, that he was required to have corrective work done at substantial expense for which he seeks $3,000, the statutory limit of this Court’s jurisdiction.
As a threshold question, this Court must determine whether the services provided by the three plaintiffs is subject to the provisions of County Law §863.313. Pursuant to County Law §863.313, a home improvement contractor may not “engage in the home improvement business within the County of Westchester . . . unless such person is licensed pursuant to this article.” A contract between parties that violates the foregoing law is void as against public policy and consequently bars recovery by a plaintiff on a theory of breach of contract or any theory of implied contract. 22 N.Y. Juris 2d, Contracts at p. 202; Jared Contracting Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, 22 N.Y.2d 178, 193, 292 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1968).
