Capogna v. Guella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capogna v. Guella

41 A.D.3d 522, 836 N.Y.S.2d 441

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 522 (Capogna v. Guella) 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

Capogna v. Guella, 41 A.D.3d 522, 836 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated [523]*523March 29, 2006, as denied their motion pursuant to Lien Law § 39 to vacate and void the notice of mechanic’s lien filed by the plaintiffs with the Suffolk County Clerk against their real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs willfully exaggerated the subject lien (see Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp., 1 AD3d 580, 581 [2003]; East Hills Metro v Dennis Constr. Corp., 277 AD2d 348 [2000]; Fidelity N.Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., 234 AD2d 263 [1996]). The fact that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a plaintiff willfully exaggerated a lien (see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 NY2d 191 [1965]). This is particularly true in light of the requirement that Lien Law § 39-a must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed (see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, supra; Pyramid Champlain Co. v Brosseau & Co., 267 AD2d 539 [1999]; Guzman v Estate of Fluker, 226 AD2d 676 [1996]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated [523]*523March 29, 2006, as denied their motion pursuant to Lien Law § 39 to vacate and void the notice of mechanic’s lien filed by the plaintiffs with the Suffolk County Clerk against their real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs willfully exaggerated the subject lien (see Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp., 1 AD3d 580, 581 [2003]; East Hills Metro v Dennis Constr. Corp., 277 AD2d 348 [2000]; Fidelity N.Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., 234 AD2d 263 [1996]). The fact that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a plaintiff willfully exaggerated a lien (see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 NY2d 191 [1965]). This is particularly true in light of the requirement that Lien Law § 39-a must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed (see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, supra; Pyramid Champlain Co. v Brosseau & Co., 267 AD2d 539 [1999]; Guzman v Estate of Fluker, 226 AD2d 676 [1996]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 522, 836 N.Y.S.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capogna-v-guella-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack