You are here: / / Court Has No Inherent Power to Vacate a Notice of Lien Which Is Valid on...

Court Has No Inherent Power to Vacate a Notice of Lien Which Is Valid on Its Face—Validity of Lien Must Be Determined in Foreclosure Proceeding

The Second Department noted that a court has no inherent power to vacate a notice of lien which is valid on its face. Determination of the validity of the lien must await trial by foreclosure:

A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6) … . Lien Law § 19 enumerates the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement … . Where, as here, the notice of lien was not invalid on its face, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure … . Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06126, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

You might also like
JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS, ALLEGING AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE THE COURT IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING, PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Imposing Incarceration As Opposed to Probation
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING ON AN HVAC SYSTEM, THE WORK WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.
BECAUSE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS OF THE INITIAL CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE WERE INVALIDATED, THE PETITION TO VALIDATE CERTIFICATES OF SUBSTITUTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Loan to Grandson Was Not Made In Anticipation of the Need to Qualify for Medical Assistance
RESETTLEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS PROPER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN THE JUDGMENT; RESETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (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

“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explai... Two-Part Inquiry for Determining Whether a Dispute is Arbitrable Under a Collective...