No License, No Lien - New York Court Bars Unlicensed Contractor from Recovery

A Brooklyn plumbing subcontractor just learned the hard way that performing licensed work without a license, even with the owner’s apparent knowledge is a dead end in New York. In Glory R Construction Inc. v. 651923 18 Ave LLC, the Kings County Supreme Court vacated Glory R Construction’s $150,000 mechanic’s lien and dismissed its entire lawsuit, holding that because Glory R lacked the required plumbing and fire suppression sprinkler licenses, it had no right to recover anything—not under contract, not in quantum meruit, and not through a mechanic’s lien. 

The owners of a Brooklyn construction project hired New York H & Y Construction as general contractor, and H & Y subcontracted the plumbing and sprinkler work to Glory R. The problem was that Glory R did not hold the New York City licenses required to perform either type of work. According to Glory R, everyone involved knew that from the outset. Glory R claimed that before the project began, the parties agreed that Glory R would retain a licensed plumber to supervise the work and provide the necessary “license coverage,” with the contract price adjusted accordingly. The owners denied any such arrangement existed. 

After a payment dispute arose, Glory R filed a $150,000 mechanic’s lien, and later commenced a foreclosure action asserting claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, account stated, and diversion of trust funds. 

The court ultimately found that none of those claims could survive because well settled case law takes an uncompromising approach to licensing violations in regulated trades. Citing a long line of appellate authority, the court reiterated that an unlicensed contractor performing work requiring a City license cannot recover payment under any theory. It does not matter that the owner allegedly knew of the licensing defect, nor does it matter that licensed professionals may have supervised the work, or that the work was actually completed. 

Glory R attempted to avoid dismissal by relying on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Charlebois v. Weller Assoc., which recognized a narrow exception where a contract expressly contemplates that a licensed professional will perform the regulated portion of the work. The court rejected that comparison because the subcontract here expressly required Glory R itself to be “lawfully licensed.” Ultimately, this distinction mattered. In Charlebois, the contract openly incorporated the licensed professional arrangement into the deal from the outset. Here, the subcontract treated Glory R itself as the properly licensed entity responsible for the regulated work. The alleged arrangement involving licensed plumbers existed only as a claimed side agreement outside the written contract. Because the subcontract also contained an integration clause stating that the written agreement represented the parties’ full understanding, the court refused to recognize the alleged supervision arrangement as a valid workaround. 

In practical terms, the court viewed Glory R as having held itself out contractually as the licensed plumbing subcontractor, even though it admittedly lacked the required licenses. That prevented Glory R from fitting within the limited Charlebois exception. 

Glory R also leaned heavily on the another appellate court’s decision in Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp., which held that an unlicensed plumbing subcontractor on a commercial project was not automatically barred from enforcing contractual rights. That Court in t reasoned that the New York City plumbing licensing scheme imposed civil and criminal penalties for unlicensed work but did not expressly require forfeiture of payment rights. That court also distinguished plumbing licensing rules from consumer-protection statutes governing home improvement contractors, where the Legislature specifically barred unlicensed contractors from suing for payment. The Kings County court acknowledged the differing approaches,  but emphasized that it was bound to follow the stricter precedent. 

The court ultimately vacated the mechanic’s lien, dismissed the foreclosure action and contract claims, and canceled the lien discharge bond. 

The decision is a strong reminder that there is no practical workaround for licensing requirements on regulated New York City construction work. Contractors performing plumbing, fire suppression, electrical, HVAC, or similar licensed trades must hold the required license themselves. Using a licensed subcontractor or supervisor will not cure the problem, and an owner’s knowledge or participation in the arrangement will not save an otherwise unenforceable claim. 

If you would like more information regarding this topic please contact Brittany Lombardi at blombardi@wbgllp.com or call (914) 607-6439