You are here: / / Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property O...
, ,

Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work

The Second Department determined that the contractor, Matell, who was hired by the tenant to construct a supermarket, could not impose a mechanic’s lien upon the property owner (Fleetwood Park) based on the tenant’s failure to pay.  In affirming the dismissal of two affirmative defenses, the court explained that the lien was timely filed and privity was not required for a valid mechanic’s lien. On the “affirmative consent of the property owner requirement,” the court wrote:

“A contractor who performs work for, or provides equipment to, a tenant may nonetheless impose a mechanic’s lien against the premises where the owner of the premises affirmatively gave consent for the work or equipment directly to the contractor, but not where the owner has merely approved or acquiesced in the undertaking of such work or the provision of such equipment” … . “To sustain the lien, the owner must either be an affirmative factor in procuring the improvement to be made, or having possession and control of the premises assent to the improvement in the expectation that he [or she] will reap the benefit of it'” … .

Here, while Matell presented evidence showing that Fleetwood Park had knowledge of, and acquiesced in, the work performed to convert the leased property into a supermarket for the tenant’s use, Matell failed to present any evidence showing that Fleetwood Park conveyed any affirmative consent directly to Matell for the work … . Therefore, Matell failed to make a prima facie showing that Fleetwood Park affirmatively consented to the subject work.  Matell Contr Co v Fleetwood Park Dev LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07456, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

You might also like
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST A SUBCONTRACTOR BECAUSE THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION ALLEGING INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF IN THE BUILDING LOBBY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE, TESTIMONY THAT NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS MAILED TO HIM VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT BASED UPON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Questions of Fact Whether Infant-Plaintiff’s Injury at the Hands of Other Students Was Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision and/or Negligent Hiring and/or Retention
Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge About Contract Breaches Did Not Toll Statute of Limitations
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar
Notice of Claim Deemed Insufficient to Allege Negligent Design or Construction of Road
Agency’s Failure to Follow Its Own Regulations Renders Determination Arbitrary and Capricious

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Test for Sufficiency of Evidence of Accessorial Liability Is Same As Test for... Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained;...