| Quick Start Constr. Corp. v Staiger |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07731 [77 AD3d 900] |
| October 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Quick Start Construction Corp., Respondent, v BillyStaiger, Also Known as William Staiger, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen,J.), entered March 10, 2010, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination in anorder of the same court dated January 20, 2010, denying their motion, among other things, forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order entered March 10, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withcosts.
During the summer of 2007, the defendants contracted with the plaintiff, Quick StartConstruction Corp., to perform renovations to their home in Patchogue. The work commenced inSeptember 2007. In December 2007 the plaintiff presented the defendants with a contract foradditions and extras. The defendants refused to sign the proposed contract or to pay any furtheramounts. In March 2008 the plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien against the defendants' property forthe sum of $65,905. In 2009 the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants. Afterissue was joined, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint on the ground that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor inSuffolk County, and was thus unable to recover any allegedly outstanding monies from them.The Supreme Court denied the motion. Thereafter, upon reargument, the Supreme Court adheredto its original determination. We affirm.
Licensing statutes are to be strictly construed and an unlicensed contractor forfeits the rightto recover damages based either on breach of contract or quantum meruit (see Flax v Hommel, 40 AD3d 809,810 [2007]; Callos, Inc. v Julianelli, 300 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]; George Piersa, Inc.v Rosenthal, 72 AD2d 593, 594 [1979]). Moreover, a home improvement contractor mustplead possession of a valid license in order to commence an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien(see Nicotra v Manger, 64 AD3d547 [2009]).
Here, the plaintiff explicitly pleaded that he was a duly licensed home improvementcontractor pursuant to a license issued by the Suffolk County Executive's Office of ConsumerAffairs. In [*2]support of their motion for summary judgment, thedefendants submitted, inter alia, a copy of the home improvement contractor license issuedspecifically to "Robert M. Chiarello doing business as Quick Start Construction Corp." Thedefendants alleged in conclusory fashion that the license was issued to Chiarello, not to theplaintiff, and that, as such, the plaintiff was unlicensed and unable to recover any unpaid sumsfrom them. Since corporations function only through the agency of others (see Oliner vMid-Town Promoters, 2 NY2d 63 [1956]), the defendants failed to make a prima facieshowing that the license did not encompass the plaintiff, as well as its principal, Robert M.Chiarello. Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Persampire, 45AD3d 706, 707 [2007]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin andRoman, JJ., concur.