The deposit cleared, the start date slipped, the texts got shorter, and now the contractor is gone. It feels like you have no leverage, they have your money and you have an unfinished kitchen. New York's home improvement law says otherwise, and it says so twice, in provisions that were protecting your money before the contractor ever picked up a tool.
First, GBL § 771 required your home improvement contract to be in writing, with the scope of work, approximate start and completion dates, and a payment schedule. Homeowners often panic when they realize the whole job was arranged over text with no formal contract. Read the statute the right way around: the missing written contract is the contractor's violation, never your problem. Your bank records, texts, and photos prove what you paid and what was promised; the absence of the mandated paperwork just adds to the contractor's exposure.
Second, and this is the provision most homeowners have never heard of, Lien Law § 71-a(4) protected your deposit itself. Advance payments under a home improvement contract must be deposited in escrow, or the contractor must post a bond covering them. Your deposit was not supposed to be working capital for the contractor's other jobs or a cushion for their cash flow. A contractor who took your money and spent it on anything other than your project, then failed to perform, is holding funds the statute says were never freely theirs. That spent deposit for unperformed work is the centerpiece of the demand.
Third, licensing. In New York City and other licensing counties, home improvement contractors must be licensed, and an unlicensed contractor forfeits the right to enforce payment for the work, while exposing themselves to a consumer affairs complaint (in NYC, to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection). Check the license before you write a word; a demand letter that states what the license search found, or did not find, speaks with a different voice.
Now the practical sequence. Assemble the money trail: every payment, by check, transfer, or app, with dates. Assemble the promise trail: the contract if one exists, the estimate, and the messages establishing scope and timeline. Photograph the state of the work. Compute restitution honestly: amounts paid, minus the fair value of any work actually performed. If the contractor did some of the work, your demand is for the unperformed balance, and honesty about that number makes the demand harder to dismiss.
Then put the demand in writing, by certified mail, citing GBL § 771 and Lien Law § 71-a(4), stating the restitution figure, and setting a deadline. Contractors who have vanished from texts have a way of reappearing when an attorney's letter arrives at their registered address, because their exposure now includes statutory violations and licensing consequences, not just a refund. One honest caveat: this playbook is for money paid and work not performed or abandoned. Disputes about the quality of completed work are different animals, they turn on inspections and expert opinions, and a demand letter is usually not the right first tool for them.
No, the opposite. GBL § 771 made the written contract the contractor's legal obligation, so its absence is the contractor's violation. Your payment records and messages prove the deal.
Under Lien Law § 71-a(4), advance payments must be held in escrow or covered by a bond. A deposit spent on anything other than your project, with the work unperformed, is the heart of the claim.
In NYC and other licensing counties, yes. Unlicensed home improvement work forfeits the contractor's own right to enforce payment and supports a complaint to the licensing authority, which adds real pressure alongside the demand.
Restitution for the unperformed balance: what you paid minus the fair value of work actually done. A precise, honest number makes the demand stronger.
Quality disputes over completed work usually need an inspection and expert analysis before any demand issues. That is consultation territory, not a flat-fee letter, and honest screening will say so.