You are here: / / THE COMPOSITE LIEN ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT INVALID...

THE COMPOSITE LIEN ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT INVALID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SHOWN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HIRED THE RESPONDENT IN SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS; THE LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISCHARGED ON THE GROUND THE AMOUNT WAS WILFULLY EXAGGERATED, A FINDING WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the composite lien encompassing several parcels of real property was not invalid on its face and had not bee declared void for wilful exaggeration. Therefore the validity of the lien must be determined in a foreclosure proceeding:

… [T]he composite mechanic’s lien was facially valid and the Supreme Court should not have summarily discharged it. … [T]he composite mechanic’s lien was not invalid because of a failure to apportion the work and material furnished between the four parcels of real property that were identified in the composite mechanic’s lien. The requirement to do so “applies where several transactions, involving the improvement of distinct parcels of property, have been effected at the request of independent owners” … . Here, the petitioners failed to establish that the individual and independent lot owners identified in the composite mechanic’s lien hired BKS in separate and distinct transactions. Furthermore, the composite mechanic’s lien was not invalid on its face merely because it identified multiple lots by their respective tax block and lot designations … . …

The Supreme Court also should not have summarily determined that branch of the petition which alleged that the amount claimed in the composite mechanic’s lien was willfully exaggerated. “Pursuant to Lien Law § 39, the court may declare a lien void and deny recovery if the lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount claimed” … . This Court has held that the remedy in Lien Law § 39-a is “available only where the lien was valid in all other respects and was declared void by reason of willful exaggeration after a trial of the foreclosure action” … . Matter of Matrix Staten Is. Dev., LLC v BKS-NY, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02795, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Here the lien should not have have summarily discharged on the ground it encompassed several parcels of property because it was not shown the individual property owners hired respondent in separate transactions. The finding that the amount of the lien was wilfully exaggerated is not a ground for summary discharge. Wilful exaggeration will void a lien, but that determination must be made in a foreclosure proceeding.

 

You might also like
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.
Police Pursuit Not Justified by Defendant’s “Grabbing of his Waistband Area” or Subsequent Flight/Gun Suppressed
Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition Even If Nonparent Has Custody Pursuant to Prior Consent Order
No Allegation of Active Concealment of Defects on Part of Seller/Buyer Can Not Sue for Defects Discovered after the Closing Based Solely Upon Seller’s Silence
Evidence of Gang Membership Properly Admitted to Show Motive for Assault
IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY OPTED OUT OF THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT REQUIRED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA); THEREFORE THE SUPPORT PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CAR DEALER, DUE TO AN ERROR, DID NOT SUBMIT THE CORRECT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MANDATED FIVE-DAY PERIOD, THAT DEFECT DID NOT INVALIDATE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE DRIVER INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THE DEALER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE... THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE SUPPORT FOR PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S CLAIM THE...