49 East 21 LLC v. C.H. Schmitt & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

49 East 21 LLC v. C.H. Schmitt & Co.

46 A.D.3d 391, 847 N.Y.S.2d 462

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 391 (49 East 21 LLC v. C.H. Schmitt & Co.) 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

49 East 21 LLC v. C.H. Schmitt & Co., 46 A.D.3d 391, 847 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 5, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted petitioner’s motion to vacate respondent Danica’s notice under mechanic’s lien law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The lien named the subject property as a whole without identifying the individual condominium units (see Lien Law § 9 [7]), and purported to place liens on the building’s common ar[392]*392eas without the consent of all individual condo unit purchasers (see Real Property Law § 339-Z [1]), thus warranting its vacatur (Lien Law § 19 [6]; see Northeast Restoration Corp. v K & J Constr. Co., 304 AD2d 306 [2003]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Buckley, JJ. [See 2006 NY Slip Op 30034(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 5, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted petitioner’s motion to vacate respondent Danica’s notice under mechanic’s lien law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The lien named the subject property as a whole without identifying the individual condominium units (see Lien Law § 9 [7]), and purported to place liens on the building’s common ar[392]*392eas without the consent of all individual condo unit purchasers (see Real Property Law § 339-Z [1]), thus warranting its vacatur (Lien Law § 19 [6]; see Northeast Restoration Corp. v K & J Constr. Co., 304 AD2d 306 [2003]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Buckley, JJ. [See 2006 NY Slip Op 30034(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 391, 847 N.Y.S.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/49-east-21-llc-v-ch-schmitt-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack