29-32 LLC v. Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

29-32 LLC v. Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc.

72 A.D.3d 1106, 898 N.Y.S.2d 883

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 27, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 1106 (29-32 LLC v. Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

29-32 LLC v. Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 1106, 898 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 38, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered October 8, 2009, which denied its motion to cancel the mechanic’s lien.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to cancel the subject mechanic’s lien (see Lien Law § 38; see generally J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. v Terra Firma Constr. Mgt. & Gen. Contr., LLC, 14 AD3d 538, 541 [2005]). Here, as noted by the Supreme Court, there is an action currently pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, entitled Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc. v 2932 LLC, under index No. 27444/08, in which the respondent herein interposed, inter alia, a cause of action to foreclose on the same mechanic’s lien involved in the instant proceeding. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court that cancellation of the lien is not warranted at this juncture. We note that our determination is without prejudice to either party raising issues regarding the lien in the pending action. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 38, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered October 8, 2009, which denied its motion to cancel the mechanic’s lien.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to cancel the subject mechanic’s lien (see Lien Law § 38; see generally J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. v Terra Firma Constr. Mgt. & Gen. Contr., LLC, 14 AD3d 538, 541 [2005]). Here, as noted by the Supreme Court, there is an action currently pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, entitled Neptune Contracting & Environmental, Inc. v 2932 LLC, under index No. 27444/08, in which the respondent herein interposed, inter alia, a cause of action to foreclose on the same mechanic’s lien involved in the instant proceeding. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court that cancellation of the lien is not warranted at this juncture. We note that our determination is without prejudice to either party raising issues regarding the lien in the pending action. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 1106, 898 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/29-32-llc-v-neptune-contracting-environmental-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack