New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
April 10, 2012
MICHAEL TURNER, RESPONDENT, --
PARFUMETICS.COM, INC., APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (In-grid Joseph, J.), entered July 6, 2009.
Turner v Parfumetics..Com, Inc.
Decided on April 10, 2012
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, an unlicensed plumber and electrical contractor, commenced this small claims action to recover the balance due on a contract to perform certain renovations to the interior of defendant's store. Following a non-jury trial, plaintiff was awarded judgment in the principal sum of $1,000.
Plaintiff's violation of the local licensing laws (Administrative Code of Westchester County § 277.702 [White Plains Electrical Code]; Administrative Code of Westchester County § 277.503 [White Plains Plumbing Code]) provides no basis to deny plaintiff recovery for the services shown to have been rendered (see Veltri v Platzner Intl. Group, Ltd., 7 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50575[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see also Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Dakar Devs.), 232 AD2d 62, 64-65 ; Roth Painting Co., Inc. v Fishman, 175 Misc 2d 525 [App Term, 1st Dept 1997]; cf. CPLR 3015 [e] [precluding certain unlicensed contractors from maintaining an action against a consumer to recover for services rendered]; Veltri v Platzner Intl. Group, Ltd., 7 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50575[U]).
Defendant's contention that plaintiff was barred from recovering for work performed without first obtaining the required permits is likewise without merit. While, as the parties agree, the job required permits, the local permit laws (White Plains Building Code; White Plains Electrical Code; White Plains Plumbing Code) do not preclude contractors from recovering for services rendered in violation of their provisions (see generally Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 152 AD2d 725, 727 , affd 80 NY2d 124  ["If the statute does not provide expressly that its violation will deprive the parties of their right to sue on the contract . . . the right to recover will not be denied"], quoting Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v Cohen, 276 NY 274, 278 ).
In light of the foregoing, we find that the judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 10, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.