Case ID: misc2d_134/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Parker et al., Respondents, v Vista Construction Concepts, Inc., Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    April 10,1986
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Probstein & Napolitano (Jon M. Probstein and Howard D. Leib of counsel), for appellant. Thomas A. Williams for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

In our opinion, the plaintiff subcontractors, notwithstanding their failure to obtain a home improvement license, may enforce their contract against the defendant contractor, since the purpose of the requirement of a license is to "safeguard and protect the home owner” (Administrative Code of City of New York § B32-350.0; see also, Rosasco Creameries v Cohen, 276 NY 274, 280; 12 NY Jur 2d, Business and Occupations, § 43; cf. Zimmett v Professional Acoustics, 103 Misc 2d 971). We do not construe the term, "owner”, as used in the code, to include a contractor vis-á-vis a subcontractor (see, Administrative Code § B32-351.0 [4]).

Kassoff, J. P., Monteleone and Lerner, JJ., concur.