You are here: / Lien Law
, , ,

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that a corporation created by the Seneca Nation for the operation of a golf course (Lewiston Golf) was not entitled to sovereign immunity and, therefore, could be sued by the company with which the Seneca Nation contracted to build the golf course.  The contractor brought suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien:

Indian tribes possess the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers, unless waived. In Matter of Ransom, we set out several factors for courts to [*6]use to determine whether an entity, such as a corporation or agency, that is affiliated with an Indian tribe has the right to claim sovereign immunity against suit.

“Although no set formula is dispositive, in determining whether a particular tribal organization is an ‘arm’ of the tribe entitled to share the tribe’s immunity from suit, courts generally consider such factors as whether: [1] the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; [2] the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; [3] the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; [4] the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; [5] tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and [6] the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether [7] the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether [8] a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether [9] the subentity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the subentity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559-560 [internal quotation marks, citations, and square brackets omitted; numbering added].) * * *

…[T]he primary purpose of creating the golf course in Lewiston was to act as a regional economic engine and thereby serve the profit-making interests of the Seneca Nation’s casino operations in the area. While this may result in more funds for government projects on the Seneca Nation’s reservations and elsewhere that benefit members of the tribe, … the purposes of Lewiston Golf were sufficiently different from tribal goals that they militate against Lewiston Golf’s claim of sovereign immunity. However, the purposes factor of Ransom is not determinative… . While some of the remaining Ransom factors favor the conclusion that Lewiston Golf is protected by sovereign immunity, the most important ones strongly support the opposite conclusion. Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Corporation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08218, CtApp 11-25-14

 

, ,

Parol Collateral Agreement Can Be Alleged Where Written Contract Does Not Embody Entire Agreement/Where Existence of Contract Is Disputed, Causes of Action for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit Are Okay/Courts Can Not Excuse Failure to Strictly Comply with Lien Law Requirements

The Second Department noted:  proof of a parol collateral agreement is okay where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement; where the existence of a contract is in dispute, causes of action for unjust enrichment and quantum merit are okay; courts do not have discretion to excuse strict compliance with Lien Law 11:

…”[A] written agreement does not exclude proof of a parol collateral agreement made even between the same parties, where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement and does not on its face purport to cover completely the subject-matter of the alleged collateral agreement” … . Here, although the first cause of action was based on a written contract, the plaintiff stated a second cause of action based on the breach of an alleged oral agreement as to services not encompassed in the written agreement.

As to the third and fourth causes of action, where, as here, the existence of the contract is in dispute, the plaintiff may allege causes of action to recover for unjust enrichment and in quantum meruit as alternatives to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014…).

Lien Law § 11 provides that within 5 days before or 30 days after filing the notice of lien, a lienor “shall” serve a copy of such notice upon the owner, as relevant here, at the owner’s “last known place of residence.” However, the plaintiff’s affidavit of service of the mechanic’s lien demonstrates that the plaintiff failed to serve the notice of the mechanic’s lien in compliance with Lien Law § 11, as the notice was not sent to the defendants’ last known place of residence. As strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the courts do not have discretion to excuse noncompliance… . Thompson Bros Pile Corp v Rosenblum, 2014 NY Slip Op 06577, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

Itemization of Mechanic’s Lien Not Necessary/Contract Adequately Apprised Owner of Lienor’s Claim

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

 

,

Garagekeeper’s Lien Ineffective Against Owner of Leased Vehicle/Lessee Did Not Have Apparent Authority to Consent to Vehicle Repair and Storage on Owner’s Behalf

A leased vehicle was damaged by hail and the lessee brought the car to respondent’s garage for repairs.  When no one picked up the car or paid for the repairs, the garage served a garagekeeper’s lien on the owner (lessor) of the vehicle.  The Third Department determined the lien was not effective against the owner, who never consented to the repairs or storage of the vehicle, and the lessee did not have apparent authority to consent on the owner’s behalf:

Supreme Court properly held that respondent failed to establish the validity of its garagekeeper’s lien.  A garage owner is entitled to such a lien if he or she establishes that the garage is duly registered as a repair shop as required by statute, is the bailee of a motor vehicle, performed garage services or storage with the vehicle owner’s consent, and the parties had agreed upon a price or – absent such agreement – the charges were reasonable … .  The dispositive issue here is whether respondent provided repair services and storage with the owner’s consent.  It is undisputed that respondent never had any communication with petitioner, the title owner, until well after the repairs were performed.  …

While a lessee may be considered an owner for purposes of Lien Law § 184 if he or she has apparent authority …, “[a]pparent authority will only be found where words or conduct of the principal – not the agent – are communicated to a third party, which give rise to a reasonable belief and appearance that the agent possesses authority to enter into the specific transaction at issue” … .  Respondent does not indicate that it undertook any steps to determine the scope of the [lessee’s]  authority… .  Petitioner’s actions in allowing [lessee] to register the vehicle in New Jersey and … to obtain insurance on the vehicle do not constitute permission to enter into a transaction that would allow a lien to attach to the vehicle.  Respondent does not point to any other words or actions of petitioner…that could create a reasonable belief that [the lessee] had authority to enter into a transaction as an owner, so as to permit the creation of a garagekeeper’s lien.  Matter of Daimler Trust…v SG Autobody LLC, 516792, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

 

 

, ,

Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, the Second Department determined plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of the law of the case (a decision in a prior appeal) to prove the amount owed on its mechanic’s liens. The court used the opportunity to explain the “law of the case” doctrine (re: prior appellate decisions) and “review the statutory requirements for recovery under the Lien Law, and the limits on recovery imposed by the principle of subrogation:”

In addition to a lienor’s right to recover being limited by the contract price or reasonable value of the materials provided, it is further limited by the principle of subrogation (see 8-92 Warren’s Weed New York Real Property § 92.11[1], [4]; 34 New York Practice: Mechanics Liens in New York § 2:3. Lien Law § 4(1) provides, “If labor is performed for, or materials furnished to, a contractor or subcontractor for an improvement, the lien shall not be for a sum greater than the sum earned and unpaid on the contract at the time of filing the notice of lien, and any sum subsequently earned thereon. In no case shall the owner be liable to pay by reason of all liens created pursuant to this article a sum greater than the value or agreed price of the labor and materials remaining unpaid, at the time of filing notices of such liens, except as hereinafter provided.” In other words, no individual mechanic’s lien can exceed the amount owed by the owner to the general contractor at the time of filing the lien … . Money still due and owing from the owner to the contractor at the time of the filing of the lien, plus any sums subsequently earned thereon, is known as the “lien fund”… .  The subcontractor’s right to recover is derivative or subrogated to the right of the general contractor to recover. Thus, if the general contractor is not owed any amount under its contract with the owner, then the subcontractor may not recover… .  Peri Formwork Sys Inc v Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07461, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, ,

Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work

The Second Department determined that the contractor, Matell, who was hired by the tenant to construct a supermarket, could not impose a mechanic’s lien upon the property owner (Fleetwood Park) based on the tenant’s failure to pay.  In affirming the dismissal of two affirmative defenses, the court explained that the lien was timely filed and privity was not required for a valid mechanic’s lien. On the “affirmative consent of the property owner requirement,” the court wrote:

“A contractor who performs work for, or provides equipment to, a tenant may nonetheless impose a mechanic’s lien against the premises where the owner of the premises affirmatively gave consent for the work or equipment directly to the contractor, but not where the owner has merely approved or acquiesced in the undertaking of such work or the provision of such equipment” … . “To sustain the lien, the owner must either be an affirmative factor in procuring the improvement to be made, or having possession and control of the premises assent to the improvement in the expectation that he [or she] will reap the benefit of it'” … .

Here, while Matell presented evidence showing that Fleetwood Park had knowledge of, and acquiesced in, the work performed to convert the leased property into a supermarket for the tenant’s use, Matell failed to present any evidence showing that Fleetwood Park conveyed any affirmative consent directly to Matell for the work … . Therefore, Matell failed to make a prima facie showing that Fleetwood Park affirmatively consented to the subject work.  Matell Contr Co v Fleetwood Park Dev LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07456, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, , ,

Bank Was Not a Statutory Lien Law Trustee; Question of Fact Whether Bank Was Aware Funds Were Diverted Lien Law Trust Funds

Plaintiff, a subcontractor in an environmental remediation project run by defendant AAA Environmental, sued on behalf of similarly situated subcontractors alleging that the arrangement AAA had with First Niagara Bank violated Lien Law article 3-A.  By that arrangement, each night funds from AAA’s operational account would be transferred to AAA’s line of credit account to reduce the balance. If the amount to be charged to AAA’s operational account exceeded the funds available, funds would be automatically transferred from the line of credit account to the operational account. Supreme Court determined the arrangement violated the Lien Law finding that Niagara Bank had notice the funds were diverted Lien Law trust funds and the bank was not a holder in due course. The Fourth Department disagreed and held Niagara Bank is not a Lien Law statutory trustee and there was a question of fact whether Niagara Bank had notice it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds:

First Niagara is not a Lien Law statutory trustee under the facts of this case and thus cannot be held liable for a violation of the Lien Law on that basis. “A lender is not a statutory trustee because ‘[n]o one other than an owner, contractor, or subcontractor is designated as a prospective trustee in article 3-A [of the Lien Law]’ ” … .  Although the Court of Appeals has held that a lender may become a statutory trustee when a contractor assigns its right of payment from the owner to the lender as security for a loan and the owner makes payments directly to the lender until the contractor’s debt is repaid …, First Niagara received no such assignment here.

…[T]he court erred in determining as a matter of law that it had actual notice that it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds, and thus could be held liable under Lien Law § 72 (1).  …

…[T]he court erred in applying a constructive notice standard in determining that First Niagara was not a holder in due course, and thus could be liable under Lien Law § 72 (1).  As the Court of Appeals noted in I-T-E Imperial Corp.—Empire Div. v Bankers Trust Co. (51 NY2d 811), “[w]ith the adoption . . . of the Uniform Commercial Code, the concept of notice under [UCC] article 3 (and by analogy under article 4 as well . . . ) has, as we have held in Chemical Bank of Rochester v Haskell (51 NY2d 85), been changed from an objective to a subjective standard, and that change must be deemed to have amended the Lien Law as well” (id. at 813-814…).

Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of UCC 3-304 (7)—unique to New York and Virginia—[is] to require that questions of notice . . . be determined by a subjective test of actual knowledge rather than an objective test which might involve constructive knowledge” … . Price Trucking Corp… v AAA Environmental Inc…m 1088, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Causes of Action Discussed in Extensive Modification of Supreme Court’s Orders

In extensively modifying Supreme Court’s rulings in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law section 273, and to recover damages for diversion of trust assets pursuant to article 3-a of the Lien Law, the Second Department explained (1) the effect of obtaining a bond on the Debtor/Creditor and Lien Law causes of action; when the Lien Law cause of action accrues; and (3) the Lien Law has an exception designed to protect purchasers of realty:

The Supreme Court improperly awarded judgment … to set aside conveyances of the property as fraudulent pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. Once [defendant] “obtained a bond to discharge the mechanic’s lien, the debt no longer existed for the purposes of Debtor and Creditor Law § 273″… .

However, contrary to the appellants’ contention, the discharge of a mechanic’s lien by the filing of a bond is not equivalent to payment or discharge of a trust claim pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A … Further, contrary to the appellants’ contention, those causes of action were not time-barred by Lien Law § 77(2), which provides that no action to enforce a trust under article 3-A of the Lien Law “shall be maintainable if commenced more than one year after the completion of such improvement.” “The one-year period does not begin to run from the date of substantial completion, but from the date of completion of all work”… .

“While the Lien Law is generally designed to protect contractors, material providers and other classes of workers who supply labor or furnish materials, subdivision (5) of section 13 is an exception which is specifically designed to protect purchasers of realty”… . Holt Constr Corp v Grand Palais LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05189, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

Loan Agreement Constituted a “Building Loan Contract” within Meaning of Lien Law/Only “Construction Funds” Subject to Subordination Penalty

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with a concurrence/dissent by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals hashed out the priority of liens, including mechanic’s liens, to be satisfied after the foreclosure on a 10 million dollar construction project in Syracuse.  The Court determined that a loan agreement constituted a “building loan contract” within the meaning of Lien Law section 22, and that only the “construction funds,” as opposed to the total mortgage, were subject to the statutory subordination penalty.  Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd v GML Tower, LLC, No 115, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

,

Court’s Explanation of Lien Law Presumption (Where Money Held In Trust by Contractor and Allegedly Misused Can Be Deemed Larceny) Was Determined to Impermissibly Switch the Burden of Proof to the Defendant​

In reversing a larceny conviction, the Second Department explained that allowing the jury to consider the Lien Law presumption (where use of funds held in trust for purposes other than those of the trust can constitute larceny) as mandatory, rather than permissive, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

Pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, a contractor who receives funds under a contract for the improvement of real property must hold the funds as a trustee, and if the contractor applies trust funds for any purpose other than the purposes of the trust and fails to pay a trust claim within 31 days of the time it is due, he or she may be guilty of larceny (see Lien Law §§ 70, 71, 79-a[1][b]…). The trial court instructed the jury, in accordance with Lien Law § 79-a(3), that “[f]ailure of the trustee to keep books and records required by this section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied . . . trust funds . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust.” Like all statutory presumptions in New York, the presumption in Lien Law § 79-a(3) is permissive … . The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that the presumption “was permissive, or to emphasize that, despite the presumption, the same burden of proof remained with the People, was bound to result in misleading the . . . jurors into believing that the presumption is conclusive and binding upon them'” …. Such a mandatory presumption is unconstitutional, as it relieves the People of their burden of proving every element of the crime and undermines the jury’s ” responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the [People], to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt'” .. . People v Cioffi, 2013 NY Slip Op 02588, 2012-00966, 2013-03689, Ind No 11-00174, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

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