17 v. Lucia To, Defendant-Appellant. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Allison R. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2025, reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the action. Appeal from order (Allison R. Greenfield, J.), entered September 5, 2025, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the balance allegedly owed on a home improvement contract for, among other things, the removal of a wood floor and sub-floor in defendant's apartment. At trial, defendant repeatedly maintained that plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor and plaintiff admitted that he did not possess a license. Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,000. We reverse.

The judgment herein did not provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584, 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). "[I]n a small claims action, the judge must, as a threshold matter, ascertain whether a contractor has the requisite license

. . . before reaching the merits of the contractor's cause of action to recover for services rendered" (Thorne v Alleyne, 54 Misc 3d 38 [2016] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13 Jud Dists 2016]; see Colorito v Crown Heating & Cooling, Inc., 6 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50082[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). This was not done by the trial judge. Since it is undisputed that plaintiff did not possess the proper license when the home improvement contract was signed or when the work was performed, its contract with defendant is unenforceable (see B & F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689, 691 [1990]).

In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: September 28, 2026