Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matilda Construction Inc. v. 420 East 72nd Street Tenants Corp.
Citations: 259 A.D.2d 374; 687 N.Y.S.2d 120; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2840
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 22, 1999; New York; State Appellate Court
An order from the Supreme Court of New York County, presided by Justice Beatrice Shainswit on January 14, 1998, addressed an action seeking recovery on a home improvement contract and enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. The court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the complaint filed by the plaintiff, ruling that it failed to state a cause of action. The dismissal was justified because the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff held the necessary license as required under the Administrative Code of the City of New York (20-387). The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the licensing requirement was inapplicable to home improvement contracts made by cooperative shareholders in buildings with more than four units. It clarified that cooperative shareholders residing in their apartments are afforded the same protections under the statute as tenants, based on the interpretations of subdivisions (3), (4), and (6) of Administrative Code 20-386. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover any unpaid amounts from the cooperative corporation, as there was no contractual relationship between them. The decision referenced the case Matter of East 70th St. Corp. v Argus Constr. Corp. to support this conclusion. The ruling was agreed upon by Justices Ellerin, Sullivan, Williams, and Tom.