History
  • No items yet
midpage
Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet
21 N.Y.2d 895
NY
1968
Check Treatment

Order reversed, without costs, and the complaint dismissed in the following memorandum: The finding of substantial performance is supported by the record. However, plaintiff cannot recover on the agreement since the installation was not licensed and since it employed unlicensed personnel to install the air conditioning system. The air conditioning system is a “ refrigerating system ” within the meaning of chapter 93 of the General Ordinances of the City of Mount Vernon and, therefore, may not be installed by unlicensed persons. Since the purpose of the regulatory scheme is to protect the public health and safety, lack of an installer’s license- bars recovery *897on the agreement (Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354; see, e.g., Ann. Business License—Failure to Procure, 82 ALR 2d 1429, 1450 et seq.; 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 580, subd. [2], par. [d]; 6A Corbin, Contracts, § 1512; cf. Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274, 280).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Case Details

Case Name: Richards Conditioning Corp. v. Oleet
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 3, 1968
Citation: 21 N.Y.2d 895
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.