Home/New York Court of Appeals/Brockhurst Company, Inc. v. City of Yonkers

Brockhurst Company, Inc. v. City of Yonkers

1 N.E.2d 965, 270 N.Y. 459, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1571
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 14, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1 N.E.2d 965 (Brockhurst Company, Inc. v. City of Yonkers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brockhurst Company, Inc. v. City of Yonkers, 1 N.E.2d 965, 270 N.Y. 459, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1571 (N.Y. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgments should be modified by disallowing the liens of Hernandez, Inc., and of Thomas Johnston, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the successful lienors who have filed briefs against the city of Yonkers.

Section 62 of the Lien Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 33, as amd. by L. 1929, ch. 515) applies in terms only to a “ lienor.” When Hernandez and Johnston came into the pending action as parties defendant, they were not lienors, nor were they lienors at any subsequent point of time. We find no distinction between liens filed before and liens filed after the commencement of an action so far as the application of the Lien Law, section 21, subdivision 2, is concerned. Some degree of diligence is still exacted from a party claiming the benefits of the Lien Law. He cannot rely wholly upon the solicitude of the courts to protect laborers and materialmen.

As to Ryan, Campbell, McVicar and Dextone liens, we think invalidation would be carrying technicality to an extreme. When they were made original parties defendant, it may be that their original liens had lapsed. Nevertheless, it cannot be said they were improperly joined. The plaintiff was not bound to determine the point at *464 his peril. The status of each of those defendants was made sufficiently firm by the filing of new notices after the action was begun. Being already in the action, it would have been futile to make application under section 62.

The other lien requires no discussion.

The judgments should be modified in accordance with this opinion and „as so modified affirmed, with costs to the successful lienors who have filed briefs against the city of Yonkers.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; O’Brien, J., taking no part.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Tri-City Electric Co. v. People
96 A.D.2d 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
N. W. Developers, Inc. v. Jeremiah Burns, Inc.
55 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Hurley Sand & Gravel Co. v. Italian-American Civil Rights League, Inc.
76 Misc. 2d 305 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Biondo v. City of Rochester
18 A.D.2d 78 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Lycee Francais v. Calagna
26 Misc. 2d 374 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
W. A. Brockhurst Co. v. City of Yonkers
180 Misc. 820 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Hernandez v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
27 F. Supp. 874 (S.D. New York, 1939)
Williamson & Adams, Inc. v. McMahon-McEntegart, Inc.
256 A.D. 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
W.A. Brockhurst Company, Inc. v. City of Yonkers
3 N.E.2d 460 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.E.2d 965, 270 N.Y. 459, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockhurst-company-inc-v-city-of-yonkers-ny-1936.