You are here: / / IN THIS LIEN LAW DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT PURSUANT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS,...

IN THIS LIEN LAW DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT PURSUANT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RESTORATION OF IMPROPERLY DIVERTED TRUST ASSETS WITH NON-TRUST ASSETS LIMITED DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Lien-Law construction-contract action, over a dissent, determined defendants did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the improper diversion of trust assets was cured by the restoration of trust assets with non-trust assets:

“[T]he primary purpose of [Lien Law] article 3-A and its predecessors . . . [is] to ensure that those who have directly expended labor and materials to improve real property [or a public improvement] at the direction of the owner or a general contractor receive payment for the work actually performed” … . “Use of trust assets for any purpose other than the expenditures authorized in Lien Law § 71 before all trust claims have been paid or discharged constitutes an improper diversion of trust assets, regardless of the propriety of the trustee’s intentions” … . Under Lien Law article 3-A, a trust beneficiary may maintain an action “to recover trust assets from anyone to whom they have been diverted with notice of their trust status” … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting defendants’ motion in part by limiting the potential damages in the diversion causes of action to a maximum of $104,205.99 based on Top Capital’s [defendant’s] alleged restoration of trust assets through payments made with non-trust assets … . Plaintiffs allege that approximately $1.4 million in trust assets was improperly diverted by defendants. The court, in limiting the potential recovery on the diversion causes of action, credited not just Top Capital but all defendants for the approximately $1.3 million Top Capital paid DiMarco [plaintiff] from non-trust assets after the trust fund was depleted. That was error because defendants failed to establish their entitlement to a restoration defense as a matter of law. Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that a defendant can cure an improper diversion of trust assets, and therefore avoid liability for that diversion, by a subsequent payment from non-trust assets … . DiMarco Constructors, LLC v Top Capital of N.Y. Brockport, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02680, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

You might also like
THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE BUT SENTENCING COURTS HAVE DISCRETION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RE-SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A CANISIUS COLLEGE STUDENT IN 2020, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT BASED ON THE SHIFT FROM IN-PERSON TO REMOTE LEARNING BECAUSE OF COVID (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE AIR BAG UNEXPECTEDLY DEPLOYED, CAUSING INJURY; DEFENDANT FORD’S EXPERT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CAUSE OF THE DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRODUCT DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE AND PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS, THE DOCTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE FAILURE “INFECTED” THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE SUPPRESSION COULD HAVE LED TO DISMISSAL OF SOME OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF PEDIATRICIAN IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION BY A FORMER PATIENT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE DURING A PHYSICAL EXAM (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

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

THE JUDGE’S MAINTENANCE AWARD MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BASED UPON THE... NON-OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO VACATE AN ERIE COUNTY TAX FORECLOSURE...