Lien Law Archives - New York Appellate Digest

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

April 30, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSES OF ACTION TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN AND BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract action brought by defendant home improvement contractor should have been granted because the complaint did not allege plaintiff was licensed as a home improvement contractor:

… [The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the parties had cohabited and shared an intimate relationship over a period of approximately two years, and that the plaintiff had performed extensive home improvement contracting work on the defendant’s residence in Rockland County during that period in reliance on the defendant’s promise that he would be reimbursed for the work following the impending sale of the residence. Claiming that the defendant had subsequently reneged on their arrangement, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien he had filed against the residence, to recover damages for breach of contract, to recover in quantum meruit, and to impose a constructive trust over the residence. The defendant thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. …

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the licensing requirement of CPLR 3015(e) did not apply herein. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he clearly engaged in home improvement contracting work, and he conceded that the cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien could not survive the defendant’s challenge pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. Moreover, the complaint did not allege that he was duly licensed in Rockland County during the relevant time period (see Code of the County of Rockland, chapter 286, § 3), and the plaintiff never disputed that he did not possess the necessary license. Thus, the causes of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, to recover damages for breach of contract, and to recover in quantum meruit should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … .Cunningham v Nolte, 2020 NY Slip Op 06493, Second Dept 11=12=20

November 12, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Lien Law

PETITIONER, THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT, SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT THE RESPONDENT REPAIR SHOP’S GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN WAS NULL AND VOID ALLEGING IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE SALE TO PAY OFF THE LIEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LIEN LAW, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SURREPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petition, brought by the owner of a leased vehicle damaged in an accident, seeking a declaration that the respondent repair shop’s garagekeeper’s lien was null and void because it did not authorize the repair, should not have been granted. Although the notice of the sale to pay off the lien did not comply with the Lien Law, evidence submitted by the petitioner in suureply should not have been considered. Therefore the petition should not have been granted on the merits and respondent repair shop should have been allowed to submit an answer:

Accepting that respondent attempted “with due diligence” to personally serve the notice upon petitioners within the county where the lien arose, however, the notice was not sent via “certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail” as required to accomplish service under Lien Law § 201 … . Those service requirements are meant “to insure that [owners] have an adequate opportunity to reclaim their vehicles” … and, inasmuch as a garagekeeper’s lien is a statutory creation in derogation of common law, the failure to comply with them renders service defective … . Accordingly, in view of respondent’s failure to serve the notice in the manner required by the Lien Law, the time in which to commence this proceeding challenging the lien never began to run … . …

Supreme Court did abuse its discretion, however, in rebuffing respondent’s request to serve an answer and instead granting the petition on the merits. There was nothing to show that respondent was not a registered repair shop during the relevant period, and respondent asked petitioners to review a vehicle lease agreement that it believed conferred actual authority upon [the lessee] to authorize repairs on [petitioner’s] behalf … . Petitioners instead provided that agreement for the first time in their surreply papers, a belated attempt to introduce new factual information to which respondent could not respond and that should have been rejected … . Matter of Daimler Trust v R&W Auto Body, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 10-29-20

October 29, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Debtor-Creditor, Lien Law, Real Property Law

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN ON REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT DESCRIBED IN THE MORTGAGE WHICH HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank was entitled to an equitable lien on real property. The mortgage secured by the property had been assigned to plaintiff but the mortgage did not include a description of the property:

… [T]he plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking, inter alia, an equitable mortgage on the property. The complaint noted that the mortgage failed to include a description of the property, and thus that the plaintiff’s security interest in the property was imperiled. …

“New York law allows the imposition of an equitable lien if there is an express or implied agreement that there shall be a lien on specific property” … . “While [a] court will impose an equitable mortgage where the facts surrounding a transaction evidence that the parties intended that a specific piece of property is to be held or transferred to secure an obligation, it is necessary that an intention to create such a charge clearly appear from the language and the attendant circumstances” … .

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff sufficiently established the existence of the loan, the intent that it be secured by the property, and the debtor’s obligation to satisfy the debt by a date certain … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Alleyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 06166, Second Dept 10-28-20

October 28, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Debtor-Creditor, Lien Law

A NOTICE OF LIEN CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED ABSENT A TRIAL IF IT IS VALID ON ITS FACE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of lien should not have been discharged because it was valid on its face:

… Supreme Court … granted the motion of defendants … to reduce or discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by plaintiff … to the extent of reducing the lien from $33,837,618.34 to $3,566,357.42 … .

A court has no inherent power to vacate, modify or discharge a notice of lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) where there is no defect on the face of the lien, and any dispute concerning the lien’s validity must await a trial … . Pizzarotti, LLC v FPG Maiden Lane LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05305, First Dept 10-1-20

October 1, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Civil Procedure, Debtor-Creditor, Lien Law

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that where the court addresses the merits of a motion to reargue it will be deemed to have granted the motion to reargue for purposes of appeal. Therefore, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the denial after addressing the merits is appealable. In that case the motion is treated as if the motion to reargue were granted and then the original decision was adhered to. The court also noted that the requirements for the personal service of a notice of sale were not met in this case. Therefore the 10-day period for bringing a special proceeding to determined the validity of the lien did not start to run:

“Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . * * *

Under Lien Law §201-a, petitioner’s 10-day time period to “commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of the lien” does not begin to run until service upon it of the “notice of sale” by respondent, the lienor. Service of such notice of sale by the lienor must be effectuated by personal service “within the county where [the] lien arose,” unless the person to be served “cannot with due diligence be found within such county” (Lien Law § 201). … As Supreme Court correctly found, and as the record reflects, respondent failed to submit any proof that it exercised due diligence in seeking to effect personal service upon petitioner of the notice of lien and sale before improperly resorting to the statutory alternative of certified mail service. As a result, the 10-day time limitation for petitioner to challenge the lien under Lien Law § 201-a did not begin to run … . Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v J.D. Mar. Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 05260, Third Dept 10-1-20

October 1, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Lien Law

ALTHOUGH THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD THE RIGHT FILE A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE ACTION TO FORECLSOE ON THE LIEN RAISED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN A PRIOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE PRECLUDED THE SECOND ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subcontractor’s action seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, despite its being based on theories different from those raised in the prior action:

“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action” … . ” [O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Accordingly, “a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … .

While a subcontractor may have the right to file a second mechanic’s lien within the statutory time period, at least to cure an irregularity in a lien first filed, or to reassert a lien when the prior one has been lost by delay in its enforcement …, a second mechanic’s lien is not immune from the doctrine of res judicata. Although the plaintiff framed its causes of action in the 2014 action as breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action, and its cause of action in this action as one to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, these are merely different theories for the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover monies allegedly owed to it under the subcontract. County Wide Flooring, Corp. v Town of Huntington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04354, Second Dept 6-5-19

June 5, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Debtor-Creditor, Lien Law

NEITHER THE VICTIM WITNESS PROTECTION ACT NOR THE MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT BASED SOLELY UPON RESTITUTION ORDERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that neither the Victim Witness Protection Act (VWPA) nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) provided for a private right of action for a judgment based solely upon restitution ordered in a criminal case:

… [T]he VWPA makes civil remedies available to collect restitution but does not make restitution a civil judgment that can simply be enforced in a private suit … . Rather, a victim may pursue a civil action for damages in connection with the injuries that resulted in a restitution order, and the restitution order may provide assistance in proving liability, but the petitioner may not rely entirely on the restitution order and the amount ordered in the criminal action. Thus, the petitioner can separately plead and prove liability and damages under either a statutory or a common-law cause of action if the restitution order fails to satisfy the victim … . …

Some cases may support the conclusion that under the MVRA, a victim who has obtained a lien on property based on a restitution order may enforce that lien in a special court proceeding … . However, these cases provide no support for the conclusion that a victim may enforce the abstract judgment itself without obtaining a lien, especially given that this would contradict the language of 18 USC § 3664(m), explicitly requiring a lien. Petitioner has obtained an abstract of judgment, but never recorded it as a lien on defendant’s property or brought an action to enforce it. … [T]he MVRA does not provide a cause of action for a private victim to enforce an abstract judgment on a restitution order, which is exactly what petitioner is seeking to do. Therefore, petitioner has no standing under the MVRA. Matter of Mikhlov v Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 04046, First Dept 5-23-19

May 23, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Lien Law

COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING PLAINTIFFS’ BREACH OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT WAS NOT VIABLE BECAUSE DEFENDANT CONTRACTORS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MECHANIC’S LIEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIEN LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants-contractors’ breach of contract counterclaim should have been dismissed because defendants did not provide the mechanic’s lien notice required by General Business Law 771 and summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Lien Law cause of action should have been granted. The action concerned home improvement work done by defendants. The notice failure did not preclude defendants’ recovery pursuant to quantum meruit:

… [P]laintiffs established that the contract at issue failed to comply with General Business Law § 771 inasmuch as it did not “contain the following notice to the owner in clear and conspicuous bold face type: Any contractor, subcontractor, or materialman who provides home improvement goods or services pursuant to your home improvement contract and who is not paid may have a valid legal claim against your property known as a mechanic’s lien’ ” … [The] failure “to enter into a signed written home improvement contract in conformity with General Business Law § 771 bars recovery based upon breach of contract” … . …

Plaintiffs met their initial burden [on their Line Law cause of action] … by establishing that … defendants possessed trust funds within the meaning of the Lien Law and failed to keep the records required by that statute. Lien Law § 75 (4) provides that the “[f]ailure of the trustee to keep the books or records required by th[at] section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied or consented to the application of trust funds actually received by him [or her] . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust as specified in section seventy-one of this chapter” The evidence submitted by … defendants in opposition to the motion … supported the conclusion that they neglected to comply with the … .requirements of Lien Law § 75 … . Weiss v Zellar Homes, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 01024, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

February 8, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Banking Law, Lien Law, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

BANK WAS ENTITLED TO A LIEN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this action to quiet title, determined that HSBC Bank was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim to impose an equitable lien on the subject property:

Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, where the “premises of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the premises of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lien-holder” … . …

[The] submissions established that HSBC, as assignee of the FA mortgage, which secured the loan proceeds used to satisfy the Berkshire mortgage, which secured the loan proceeds used to satisfy the plaintiff’s mortgage obligation to Ocwen, was entitled to be put in the place of Ocwen as holder of the mortgage lien in the sum of $207,566.25 … . Lombard v Yacoob, 2019 NY Slip Op 00427, Second Dept 1-23-19

January 23, 2019/by Bruce Freeman