In Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. and Dakar Dev., Inc., 232 A.D.2d 62, app. denied, 91 N.Y.2d 808 the Court explained that CPLR Rule 3015(e) bars an unlicensed contractor from maintaining an action against a consumer, and that a consumer, while undefined in the statute, should be construed to mean residential tenant or owner in a residence. (Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp., supra, 232 A.D.2d at 66). The Court also cited with approval two other cases which interpreted consumer to mean that "'the person seeking to invoke the license requirements ... must actually reside in the dwelling unit in which the work is to be performed." (Id. at 65-66.) In that case, the court denied a real estate developer's petition to vacate an arbitration award that had been awarded to a contractor and the filed mechanic's lien because it was undisputed that defendant (as a real estate developer) was not a residential tenant or owner in a residence and, therefore, a real estate developer is not "encompassed among the protected class of consumers envisaged by CPLR 3015(e) ...." (Migdal, 232 A.D.2d at 66).