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