Amber Well Drilling, LLC v. Reed

2026 NY Slip Op 02539 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026) · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · April 24, 2026 · No. CA 24-01399

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed a judgment awarding Amber Well Drilling, LLC damages on a quantum meruit theory for completed home-improvement work. The court held that the contractor could not enforce a contract that failed to comply with General Business Law § 771, including its provisions for contractual interest and attorneys’ fees. The court also declined to consider an unpreserved argument seeking full enforcement of the contract.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decision date
April 24, 2026
Docket number
CA 24-01399
Disposition
affirmed

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a contractor may enforce a home-improvement contract through a breach-of-contract claim, including contractual interest and attorney's fees, when the contract does not strictly comply with General Business Law § 771.
  2. Whether the contractual interest and attorney's-fee provision may be severed from an otherwise unenforceable home-improvement contract and enforced against the homeowner.
  3. Whether plaintiff's unpreserved argument for full enforcement of the contract should be considered under an exception to New York's preservation rule.

Holdings

  1. A contractor may not recover against a homeowner based on breach of a home-improvement contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771, although the contractor may recover for completed work under principles of quantum meruit.
  2. A contractual provision for interest and attorney's fees cannot be severed from and enforced under an otherwise unenforceable home-improvement contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771.
  3. The court declined to consider plaintiff's argument that the contract should be fully enforced because plaintiff failed to raise that specific argument in the trial court, and the narrow exception for unpreserved pure legal issues did not apply.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…