You are here: / / Itemization of Mechanic’s Lien Not Necessary/Contract Adequately Apprised O...

Itemization of Mechanic’s Lien Not Necessary/Contract Adequately Apprised Owner of Lienor’s Claim

The Third Department determined that plaintiff was not required to provide an itemized list of labor and materials to substantiate its claim under the Lien Law (mechanic’s lien).  The lienor need only supply an itemized list when itemization is necessary to apprise the owner of the details of the lienor’s claim.  Here there was a construction contract which plaintiff alleged was performed in full. Itemization would therefore be “superfluous:”

Lien Law § 38 states that a lienor “shall, on demand in writing, deliver to the owner or contractor making such demand a statement in writing which shall set forth the items of labor and/or material and the value thereof which make up the amount for which he [or she] claims a lien, and which shall also set forth the terms of the contract under which such items were furnished.”  While that language “appears to confer an unrestricted right to an itemization of labor and materials, such is not the case” … .  Itemization is instead required only when it is necessary “to apprise the owner of the details of the lienor’s claim” … .

Turning to the case at hand, plaintiff asserts that it performed the 2011 construction contract in full, and its claim with regard to that contract “is based on an express contract for a specific sum” … .  Defendants do not dispute that they were fully aware of the terms of that contract and, indeed, they attached a copy of the written contract to their answer. Associated Building Services Inc v Pentecostal Faith Church, 516897, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

 

You might also like
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).
SPECIAL FUND LIABLE FOR CLAIM MADE AFTER THE 2014 CUTOFF FOR NEWLY REOPENED CLAIMS, DECEDENT’S CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND IN 2002 AND HIS DEATH WAS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE 2002 CLAIM.
Family Court Could Not Countermand County Court’s Order of Protection
EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT WAS INCOMPLETE, AND, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF FATHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS SUFFICIENT, FAMILY COURT DID NOT TAKE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN INTO CONSIDERATION, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED DEFENDANT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
Driver Who Had Right of Way But Allowed Another Driver to Turn Can Be Liable to Motorist Struck by Turning Car​
VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED LABORER.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Garagekeeper’s Lien Ineffective Against Owner of Leased Vehicle/Lessee Did... Foreclosure On Both Junior and Senior Mortgages May Result in Unjust Enrichment...