In Routier v. Waldeck, 184 Misc. 2d 487, 708 N.Y.S.2d 270 [Nassau Dist Ct 2000], the Court in deciding a dispute between an unlicensed contractor who performed extensive renovations for a prospective purchaser of a home held that the home improvement statute was enacted to safeguard and protect consumers against fraudulent practices and inferior work by those who would hold themselves out as home improvement contractors (citing to B & F Building Corp. v. Liebig, 76 N.Y.2d 689 [1990]). "It was clearly not intended to extend such protection to 'all other persons' as a literal but out of context reading of the statute might imply" (Routier v. Waldeck, supra, 184 Misc. 2d at 487). The Court further stated: "recognizing then that there are limitations on the spectrum of individuals who may avail themselves of the shield that this statute provides yet mindful that this paternalistic statute may also be used as a sword against unlicensed but otherwise competent contractors, this Court draws the following bright lines so that all may know to whom this statute applies. The term 'owners' as defined in this statute applies to individuals who reside in the subject premises and those who intend to reside in the subject premises after the home improvements are completed. It does not apply to speculators and real estate investors who have no intention of residing in the subject premises. These latter classes of individuals are business people who have other remedies available to them and who may not rely on consumer type statutes for protection" (Id.).