819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v. T. & A. Associates, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 446, 260 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 446 (819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v. T. & A. Associates, 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
819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v. T. & A. Associates, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 446, 260 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

Order, entered April 28, 1965, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to direct that the lienor should furnish the petitioner with a statement setting forth the items comprising the labor and material charges for alleged extra work and materials, and as thus modified the order is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Itemization of labor and materials is not required with respect to a balance of an agreed price where, as here, it is claimed that the contract has been substantially completed. (See Matter of Borysko [Kabro Constr. Corp.], 2 Misc 2d 621.) But it is the rule that where there is a claim for extra work and materials, a detailed itemization of such claim must be furnished. The statement should clearly show the difference between the contract work and that of the extras, with itemization of the labor and material comprising the extras.” (Matter of Pinckney v. Ocean Home Enterprises, 13 A D 2d 806; see, also, Callipari v. 516 East 11th St. Corp., 166 Misc. 79.) The bare specification of a certain sum for labor and another sum for material listed under a general description of the work performed will not suffice. Since the statute intended an itemization of the materials and the work to enable the petitioner to check the claim, the statement served by the lienor should set forth the description, quantity and costs of various kinds of materials and the details as to the nature of labor, time spent and hourly or other rate of the labor charges. (See Matter of Sperry [Millar], 254 App. Div. 819; Matter of Ambrosio v. Shick, 229 App. Div. 738; Matter of Seid v. Hanco Co., 31 Misc 2d 316.) Nothing short of this detail will satisfy the statutory requirement that the statement shall set forth the items of labor and/or material and the value thereof which make up the amount for which *' * * [a lien is claimed].” (Lien Law, § 38.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., Tálente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of 142 W. 81st St. LLC v. Reliant Elec. Contr., Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33472(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. Five Star Electric Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 31208(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. Five Star Elec. Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 31208(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Your Vet 1, LLC v. Eastman, Cooke & Assoc., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31140(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of Red Hook 160, LLC v. Borough Constr. Group, LLC
204 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Plain Ave. Stor., LLC v. BRT Mgt., LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 7312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Associated Building Services, Inc. v. Pentecostal Faith Church
112 A.D.3d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DePalo v. McNamara
139 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
In re Burdick Associates Owners Corp.
131 A.D.2d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Solow v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
60 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 446, 260 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/819-sixth-ave-corp-v-t-a-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1965.