Plaintiff sues to recover for work, labor, and services, and materials furnished defendant at an agreed price.
On the trial, plaintiff introduced evidence as tó three separate agreements, for plumbing work, aggregating $194. This evidence was ob
At the close of the case, defendant moved to strike out all of the testimony in support of the plaintiff’s several claims for plumbing, on the ground that the contracts were illegal, and plaintiff could not maintain an action based on such contracts. This motion was denied.
It has been repeatedly held that an action cannot be maintained on contracts of this character, where the contractor is not a duly licensed or registered plumber, or has not obtained a certificate of competency, as required by the statute. See Wexler v. Rust, 144. App. Div. 296, 128 N. Y. Supp. 977; Schnaier & Co. v. Grigsby, 132 App. Div. 854, 117 N. Y. Supp. 455, affirmed on opinion below 199 N. Y. 577, 93 N. E. 1125; Bronold v. Engler, 194 N. Y. 323, 87 N. E. 427, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 176.
The judgment must therefore=be modified, by reducing it to $212.25 and appropriate costs in the court below, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party. All concur.