DECISION & ORDER BACKGROUND The plaintiff brought this breach of contract action seeking to recover damages stemming from a contract for home repairs. The defendants filed an answer denying the claim and stating the debt has been paid or part of the debt has been paid. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court reserved decision. The Court hereby finds and decides the following. FINDINGS OF FACT As per the plaintiff’s testimony, the plaintiff is an unlicensed contractor who was contracted to do work at the defendant’s premises. Plaintiff testified the defendant asked him to remove and replace shingles and to remove and replace the gutters. Plaintiff stated he did 95 percent of the work. The contract price per the Plaintiff was $17,000.00. Plaintiff states he was only paid $5,000.00. Plaintiff admits not having a license to do the work. He said he has worked on many projectes for the defendant. Receipts for supplies were admitted into evidence as Plaintiff’s 1-5. Plaintiff did not have a copy of the contract. Defendant states the contract price was $12,000.00 and he paid plaintiff $10,500.00. He states he has used the plaintiff for many jobs for over 20 years. Defendant produced his copy of the contract in evidence as Defendant’s A. The defendant states he paid plaintiff $10,500.00 for the work performed and has submitted in evidence as Defendant’s A the receipts for payments received, Deposit of $2,000.00 on 9/9/19, payment of $2,000.00 on 9/10/19, payment of $1,000.00 on 9/16/19, payment of $2,000.00 on 9/20/19, $950.00 for materials, $850.00 for garbage disposal, and $1,650.00 for gutter on 10/4/19. Defendant states that the plaintiff started the work but did not finish because he wanted more money. Defendant states that after a month of calling the plaintiff to finish the work he hired another contractor to finish the job and paid $7,000.00, receipt in evidence as Defendant’s B. According to the plaintiff, the defendant told him not to come to work during the Jewish holidays and when he returned to finish the work, he was told not to do any further work by defendant’s daughter. Seven photographs of the work were marked as Plaintiff’s 6. The plaintiff seeks a money judgment for the balance due for work performed in the amount of $12,000.00. DISCUSSION CPLR 3015(e) requires a home improvement contractor to be duly licensed prior to commencing a cause of action against a consumer for payment for services rendered. This regulatory scheme protects homeowners from abuses and fraudulent practices by persons engaged in the home improvement business (see, Millington v. Rapoport, 98 A.D.2d 765, 469 N.Y.S.2d 787). CPLR 3015(e) states as follows: “License to do business. Where the plaintiff’s cause of action against a consumer arises from the plaintiff’s conduct of a business which is required by state or local law to be licensed by the department of consumer affairs of the city of New York….., the complaint shall allege, as part of the cause of action, that plaintiff was duly licensed at the time of services rendered and shall contain the name and number, if any, of such license and the governmental agency which issued such license. The failure of the plaintiff to comply with this subdivision will permit the defendant to move for dismissal pursuant to paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of rule thirty-two hundred eleven of this chapter.” The failure to comply with the statute can lead to draconian results, such as a subcontractor being precluded from receiving payment for a job well done. As stated in Kristeel, Inc. v. Seaview Development Corporation, 165 A.D.3d 1243, 87 N.Y.S.3d 600 (2d Dept 2018(, where the Second Department revered supreme court and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Thus, as the plaintiff has failed to properly plead his complaint and the plaintiff has admittedly performed work without a license. The matter is hereby dismissed. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: February 4, 2020
