Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bindela Construction LLC v. Campo

Supreme Court, New York County

August 2, 2013

BINDELA CONSTRUCTION LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN THOMAS CAMPO, Defendant. Index No. 158141/12

Unpublished Opinion

Submission Date: 3/20/13

For Plaintiff Sabaj Law, P.C.

For Defendant Law Offices of C. Jaye Berger

DECISION AND ORDER

SALIANN SCARPULLA, JUDGE

Papers considered in review of defendant's motion to dismiss (motion seq. no. 001):

Notice of Motion/Affirm, of Counsel/Memo of Law/Exhibits..................1
Affirm, of Counsel in Opp. to Motion/Exhibits........................................2
Reply Affirm, in Supp/Exhibits................................................................3

Plaintiff Bindela Construction LLC ("Plaintiff) commenced this action to recover sums for home improvement work that it performed at defendant Darren Thomas Campo's ("Campo") apartment located at 135 West 70th Street, Apt. 9G, New York, NY ("the property"). Campo moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7) and to vacate Plaintiffs mechanic's lien against the property pursuant to Lien Law § 19.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it performed home improvement work at Campo's apartment, pursuant to a contract that Plaintiff and Campo allegedly entered into on or about September 2011. Plaintiff claims that Campo agreed to pay $416, 135.38 for the home improvement work.

Plaintiff alleges that Campo refused to pay the remaining balance due on the contract, $126, 135.38. On April 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien against the property in the amount of $126, 135.38.

In this action, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Campo for account stated, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover $126, 135.38, plus interest from April 15, 2012.

In the current motion, Campo argues that the complaint should be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff failed to allege that it is a licensed home improvement contractor as required by CPLR ยง 3015(e); (2) no contract exists between Plaintiff and Campo to support the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.