Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (D. Hart, J.), dated September 20, 2001, which awarded plaintiff a total sum of $7,987.44.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the court below in conducting the trial improperly made itself an expert on the price of houses and thereby implicitly concluded that the work done on defendant's house could not have been substandard based on the selling price. Furthermore, the intemperate statements of the trial court appear to suggest a predetermination of the outcome of the matter. Under these circumstances, a new trial is warranted

We note that upon the new trial, one issue to be resolved is whether the regulatory scheme set forth in the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 20-385, 20-386 and 20-387, intended to protect consumers, protects defendant against an unlicensed home improvement contractor (cf. Routier v Waldeck, 184 Misc 2d 487 [2000]).
Decision Date: January 29, 2004