[*1]
Pierre-Louis v Adkins
2009 NY Slip Op 51763(U) [24 Misc 3d 143(A)]
Decided on August 14, 2009
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on August 14, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570442/08.

Margo Pierre-Louis and Clotaire Pierre-Louis, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

against

Malik Adkins, individually and d/b/a Tri Tech Construction Management and Design, Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated January 30, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment.


Per Curiam:

Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated January 30, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs-homeowners' contention, the fact that defendant was not licensed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-387, standing alone, does not require defendant to return the down payment paid on the unenforceable home improvement contract (see Segrete v Zimmerman, 67 AD2d 999 [1979]). Although plaintiffs are entitled to restitution for payments actually made for work which was either defective or not rendered (see Brite-N-Up, Inc. v Reno, 7 AD3d 656 [2004]), we agree that the record raises triable issues as to whether the value of the work completed by defendant was less than the $10,000 down payment tendered by plaintiffs.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: August 14, 2009