Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

ISLAND WIDE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING et al., Respondents, v. George SACHS, Appellant.

Decided: June 28, 2001

Present:  FLOYD, P.J., COLABELLA and COPPOLA, JJ. Frederic C. Foster, Westhampton (Richard W. Vandenburgh of counsel), for appellant. Valente & Klein, P. C., New York City (Douglas Valente of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

A review of the record on appeal indicates that, the parties entered into a signed written home improvement contract on June 17, 1996 which stated that the plaintiffs were to perform certain air conditioning services at the defendant's residence.   While the contract set forth the plaintiffs' business address, the defendant's residence address, a description of the work to be performed, the type of ventilator fan which was to be installed and the cost of such work, it is devoid of the other terms required by General Business Law § 771 which governs home improvement contracts.

In our opinion, the lower court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiffs who substantially performed under the contract.   The contract indicates that there was a clear meeting of the minds between the parties.   Under the circumstances, even absent full compliance with General Business Law § 771, the subject contract was enforceable (see, Wowaka & Sons v. Pardell, 242 A.D.2d 1, 672 N.Y.S.2d 358;  see also, Porter v. Bryant, 256 A.D.2d 395, 681 N.Y.S.2d 582).   We note that had there been no signed written contract, the plaintiffs would have nevertheless been entitled to an award for completed work based on a theory of quantum meruit (see, Pepe v. Tannenbaum, 279 A.D.2d 620, 719 N.Y.S.2d 886;  Frank v. Feiss, 266 A.D.2d 825, 698 N.Y.S.2d 363;  William Conover, Inc. v. Waldorf, 251 A.D.2d 727, 673 N.Y.S.2d 770).