Bronold v. . Engler, 87 N.E. 427 (1909). · Go Syfert
Search
Bronold v. . Engler, 87 N.E. 427 (1909). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Glory R Constr. Inc. v. 651923 18 Ave LLC (nysupctkings, 2026-03-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1909 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1909 1967 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Glory R Constr. Inc. v. 651923 18 Ave LLC (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2026 · confidence medium
Although an exception may be made where the plumbing work may be considered "the mere incident of a larger work," that exception did not apply where the contract exceeded the balance of $50,000 ( id. at 45, quoting Bronold v Engler , 194 NY 323, 325 [1909]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vitanza v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1975 · confidence medium
An exception is made where a builder contracts to erect a structure, including the plumbing work, for an all-inclusive sum and the plumbing work may be considered "the mere incident of a larger work” (Bronold v Engler, supra, p 325).
discussed Cited "see" In re the Arbitration between Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. & Dakar Developers, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
Some older case law, concededly, did occasionally bar actions by unlicensed plumbers to recover the value of their services (see, e.g., Johnston v Dahlgren, 166 NY 354 [plaintiff hired as master plumber for work in defendant’s house]; accord, Bronold v Engler, 194 NY 323 ; see also, Vitanza v City of New York, 48 AD2d 41 , affd 40 NY2d 872 [City could rescind contract, when precondition to contract was that plumber was licensed]), although other case law articulated the contrary result (see, e.g., De Paso v Cooper, 43 Misc 2d 160,161 [no legal basis to deprive an unlicensed plumber of the ri…
cited Cited "see, e.g." SKR Design Group, Inc. v. Yonehama, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Court noted, however, that this was not an "absolute or per se rule” (Charlebois v Weller Assocs., supra, at 593; see also, Bronold v Engler, 194 NY 323 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ellis v. Gold
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
From the foregoing, it is apparent that New York has taken a strict approach on this area of the law and that our "courts have been adamant in their refusal to permit recovery under a contract * * * where the contractor is not licensed” (Vitanza v City of New York, supra, at 44; see, e.g., Bronold v Engler, 194 NY 323 [recovery denied to unlicensed plumbing firm even though firm’s manager was licensed]; Wexler v Rust, 144 App Div 296 , supra [recovery denied to unlicensed plumbing contractor even though it used a licensed subcontractor]; George Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal, 72 AD2d 593 , supra…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Meguin v. Kramer
N.Y. App. Term. · 1965 · signal: see also · confidence low
S. 2d 471; see, also, Bronold v. Engler, 194 N. Y. 323 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Bensel
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1910 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, in this connection, Bronold v. Engler, 121 App. Div. 123 (affd., 194 N. Y. 323 ), which holds that “Where parties hold themselves out as pursuing the trade of a master plumber, it is a violation of section 45 of the General Cities Law (L. 1900, ch. 32T) to carry on that business without a license.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louis Bronold Et Al., Appellants,
v.
August Engler, Respondent
Feb 9, 1909.
87 N.E. 427
1909 N.Y. LEXIS 1284
George A. Lewis for appellants. Marc W. Comstock for respondent.
<italic>Per Curiam</italic>..
Published
Per Curiam.

The constitutionality of a statute (L. 1892, ch. 602, § 5), of which the present section 45 of the General Cities Law (L. 1900, ch. 327) is a substantial re-enactment, was upheld by this court in People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden, etc. (144 N. Y. 529), but subsequently an additional provision, which enacted that in the city of New York every member of a partnership carrying on the business of employing or master plumber must be a licensed plumber, was held unconstitutional, it there appearing that the unlicensed partner took no part in the conduct of the business except to furnish capital, keep the books and attend to the financial and office departments of the business. (Sehnaier [*325] v. Navarre Hotel & I. Co., 182 N. Y. 83.) It is under this last decision of the court that the plaintiffs claim to be exempt from the condemnation of the statute, the testimony-being that they employed as manager of the business a licensed master plumber. We think there is a clear distinction between the two cases. It is not the manager but the plaintiffs who are the responsible heads of the business; not he, but they, are liable for defective work or improper plumbing. They, not he, have the continuous power to determine what journeymen plumbers shall be employed to do the work and how it shall be done, and he himself might be at any time discharged. His connection with the work depends on the continuing pleasure of the plaintiffs. We do not say that any one, not a master plumber, making a contract which provides to some extent for plumbing work, would fall 'within the inhibition of the statute. A builder might contract to erect and complete a house or other structure including the plumbing work for a gross sum and for that purpose he would have the right to employ a licensed master plumber to do the plumbing work. He would in such case in no fair sense be conducting the “trade, business or calling” of a master plumber. It would be the mere incident of a larger work. In this case, however, the trade of a master plumber is the very business or trade which the plaintiffs hold themselves out as pursuing and, therefore, falls within the inhibition of the statute.

It appears by the license issued to the so-called general manager, which is in the record, that he is authorized to carry on the business of plumbing under the name of Bronold & Co. If it be the fact that he was the true principal the action should have been brought by him and not in the name of the plaintiffs. In neither view of the case, whether he be agent or principal, can the action be maintained.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.