Clifford Broman & Son, Inc. v. Town of Babylon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clifford Broman & Son, Inc. v. Town of Babylon

222 A.D.2d 643, 635 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 643 (Clifford Broman & Son, Inc. v. Town of Babylon) 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

Clifford Broman & Son, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 222 A.D.2d 643, 635 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose on a public improvement mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated December 1, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendants Town of Babylon and Hi-Tech Mechanical, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s lien was valid only as to any amount still due and unpaid to the subcontractor, Yellowstone Equipment Inc. (see, Ace Contr. Co. v Garfield & Arma Assocs., 148 Misc 2d 475, 477). Since a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the subcontractor was owed any money at the time the plaintiff’s lien was filed, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose on a public improvement mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated December 1, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendants Town of Babylon and Hi-Tech Mechanical, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s lien was valid only as to any amount still due and unpaid to the subcontractor, Yellowstone Equipment Inc. (see, Ace Contr. Co. v Garfield & Arma Assocs., 148 Misc 2d 475, 477). Since a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the subcontractor was owed any money at the time the plaintiff’s lien was filed, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 643, 635 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-broman-son-inc-v-town-of-babylon-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack