DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the first counterclaim and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The contract in issue fell within the definition of a home improvement contract ( see Mortise v. 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 102 A.D.2d 719, affd 63 N.Y.2d 743). Since the plaintiff was not licensed pursuant to Administrative of the City of New York Code § 20-387 at the time that the contract was entered into and the work was performed, the contract was unenforceable ( see BF Bldg. Corp. v. Liebig, 76 N.Y.2d 689, 691-692). The lack of a license also bars recovery of damages for breach of contract or in quantum meruit ( see BF Bldg. Corp. v. Liebig, supra; Hughes Hughes Contr. Corp. v. Coughlan, 202 A.D.2d 476).
However, the defendant's first counterclaim to recover "the difference between the contract price and the actual cost to complete the job" must be dismissed. In these circumstances the contract is rescinded and generally "[t]he parties * * * should be left as they are" ( Segrete v. Zimmerman, 67 A.D.2d 999, 1000; see Goldstein v. Gerbano, 158 A.D.2d 671; Allen v. Miller, 1 Misc.2d 102). Although a homeowner may seek restitution for payments actually made for work which was not performed or for defective work ( see Goldstein v. Gerbano, supra; Allen v. Miller, supra), the defendant's conclusory assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was entitled to restitution.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.