856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. v. Style & Care, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. v. Style & Care, Inc.

117 A.D.3d 530, 985 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedMay 13, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 530 (856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. v. Style & Care, 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

856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. v. Style & Care, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 530, 985 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered November 26, 2012, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) for an order summarily discharging the mechanic’s lien that respondent filed against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lien Law § 10 (1) requires that a mechanic’s lien be filed within eight months after the lienor finishes its work or last furnishes materials (Lien Law § 10 [1]). Here, the lien was filed less than two months after April 30, 2011, the date that respondent represented in its verified notice of lien that it had completed its work. Although that date did not appear on respondent’s itemized statement of work performed, respondent’s principal submitted an affidavit in opposition to the petition averring that work had been done on that date, which petitioner disputes. Because the lien was timely on its face, the court was not permitted to summarily discharge it on the basis [531]*531of untimeliness (Lien Law § 19 [6]; Matter of Taocon, Inc. v Urban D.C. Inc., 110 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2013]; Slazer Enters. Owner, LLC v Gotham Greenwich Constr. Co., LLC, 50 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2008]). It is a trial, not a summary proceeding, that is the proper forum for resolving the factual disputes between these parties (id.).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered November 26, 2012, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) for an order summarily discharging the mechanic’s lien that respondent filed against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lien Law § 10 (1) requires that a mechanic’s lien be filed within eight months after the lienor finishes its work or last furnishes materials (Lien Law § 10 [1]). Here, the lien was filed less than two months after April 30, 2011, the date that respondent represented in its verified notice of lien that it had completed its work. Although that date did not appear on respondent’s itemized statement of work performed, respondent’s principal submitted an affidavit in opposition to the petition averring that work had been done on that date, which petitioner disputes. Because the lien was timely on its face, the court was not permitted to summarily discharge it on the basis [531]*531of untimeliness (Lien Law § 19 [6]; Matter of Taocon, Inc. v Urban D.C. Inc., 110 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2013]; Slazer Enters. Owner, LLC v Gotham Greenwich Constr. Co., LLC, 50 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2008]). It is a trial, not a summary proceeding, that is the proper forum for resolving the factual disputes between these parties (id.).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 530, 985 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/856-river-ave-rest-corp-v-style-care-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack