Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Paino Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Paino Bros.

247 A.D. 746

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D. 746 (Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Paino Bros.) 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

Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Paino Bros., 247 A.D. 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying petitioner’s motion to amend its notice of mechanic’s Een filed pursuant to section 12 of the Lien Law, nunc pro tunc, invoking for the purpose section 12-a by correcting the name of the lienor, reversed on the law, with ten doEars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten doEars costs. We are of opinion that the lien was vaüd as filed and that no such amendment was necessary, except as a matter of form. There was a substantial compEanee with the statute, (Gates & Co. v. Nat. Fair & Exposition Assn., 225 N. Y. 142.) There is no claim that the notice of lien is defective in any requirement other than that in the name of the Eenor inserted in the Een the word “ Corporation ” was substituted for the words “ Co., Inc.,” after the words “ Core Joint Concrete Pipe.” The fact that there was in existence another corporation subsequently incorporated under the [747]*747name of Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corporation is immaterial, since the lien was verified by a proper officer and complied in all respects with the requirements of the Lien Law (§ 12). Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying petitioner’s motion to amend its notice of mechanic’s Een filed pursuant to section 12 of the Lien Law, nunc pro tunc, invoking for the purpose section 12-a by correcting the name of the lienor, reversed on the law, with ten doEars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten doEars costs. We are of opinion that the lien was vaüd as filed and that no such amendment was necessary, except as a matter of form. There was a substantial compEanee with the statute, (Gates & Co. v. Nat. Fair & Exposition Assn., 225 N. Y. 142.) There is no claim that the notice of lien is defective in any requirement other than that in the name of the Eenor inserted in the Een the word “ Corporation ” was substituted for the words “ Co., Inc.,” after the words “ Core Joint Concrete Pipe.” The fact that there was in existence another corporation subsequently incorporated under the [747]*747name of Core Joint Concrete Pipe Corporation is immaterial, since the lien was verified by a proper officer and complied in all respects with the requirements of the Lien Law (§ 12). Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/core-joint-concrete-pipe-corp-v-paino-bros-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack