Opinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.)
The action was properly dismissed because the complaint seeks to recover on a home improvement contract but does not allege that plaintiff possessed the required license (Administrative Code of City of N Y § 20-387 [a]; CPLR 3015 [e]; see, Primo Constr. v. Stahl, 161 A.D.2d 516). We reject plaintiff's argument that such licensing requirement does not apply to home improvement contracts such as this entered into by cooperative shareholders in buildings containing more than four residences. Reading subdivisions (3) and (6) of Administrative Code § 20-386 in conjunction with subdivision (4), by which the definition of an owner was extended to include cooperative shareholders, it is clear that cooperative shareholders who reside in their apartments are entitled to the same protection under the statute as tenants. Nor can plaintiff recover the unpaid balance from the cooperative corporation, "with whom it has no contractual, or other, relationship" ( Matter of East 70th St. Corp. v. Argus Constr. Corp., 193 A.D.2d 563, 564).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Williams and Tom, JJ.