Claimant filed this action on March 2, 2023, seeking $4,766 from Defendant as the amount allegedly overpaid for construction services at the Claimant's home pursuant to an oral contract. The matter proceeded to trial on April 20, 2023. The Court rendered a decision on the record declining to award money damages to the Claimant because the Court found that if the Claimant was legitimately concerned about the quality of the work performed, then the Claimant could have withheld the progress payments. However, the General Business Law section 771 has very detailed provisions in what needs to be contained in a home improvement contract and by its plain terms "shall be evidenced by a writing". The General Business Law section 773 provides for a civil penalty "not to exceed the greater of two hundred fifty dollars for each violation or five percent of the aggregate contract price specified in the home improvement contract" for "substantial violations" relating to the provisions of the home improvement contract. It appears that the Defendant earns a living as contractor so he conducts a quite a bit of business in the local area. The Claimant in this case provided payments totaling $31,444 on a $10,200 written contract. The difference of $21,244 paid via several checks were essentially progress payments for work outside the scope of the original contract and thus were made pursuant to an oral contract between the parties.

The Court made a determination on the record on April 20, 2023, that the Claimants failed to prove their case by a fair preponderance of the evidence because if they were legitimately concerned about the quality of the work, they would have stopped the progress payments. The Court also determined that the oral contract was a willful, substantial violation of the General Business Law section 771 and a civil penalty is appropriate under General Business Law section 773. The $22,244 oral contract could allow for a civil penalty as high as $1,062.20. [*2]However, the Court assessed a civil penalty of $500 on the record.

As there is not a pre-generated form in UCMS to generate a form assessing this penalty, the Court is now reducing it's April 20, 2023, decision made on the record in open court to writing.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that a civil penalty under General Business Law section 773 in the amount of $500 is assessed against the Defendant which should be payable to the Clerk of the Court. It is further ordered that when the Clerk received the payment, it should remit the same to the City of Little Falls.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.