Donjon Marine Co. v. Mergentime Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donjon Marine Co. v. Mergentime Corp.

203 A.D.2d 129, 610 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4058

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

DecidedApril 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 129 (Donjon Marine Co. v. Mergentime Corp.) 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

Donjon Marine Co. v. Mergentime Corp., 203 A.D.2d 129, 610 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent of ordering defendant to pay to the court the sum of $64,577.52 pending resolution of this breach of contract action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly applied Lien Law § 77 (3) (a) to impress a [130]*130trust upon monies received by defendant contractor pending determination of plaintiff subcontractor’s claim to such funds and defendant’s alleged diversion thereof (Lien Law § 71 [2]; Aquilino v United States, 10 NY2d 271, 278-280). Defendant was not entitled to pay valid business expenses or itself prior to payment of subcontractors and materialmen (see, Matter of Kawczynski, 442 F Supp 413, 415). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent of ordering defendant to pay to the court the sum of $64,577.52 pending resolution of this breach of contract action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly applied Lien Law § 77 (3) (a) to impress a [130]*130trust upon monies received by defendant contractor pending determination of plaintiff subcontractor’s claim to such funds and defendant’s alleged diversion thereof (Lien Law § 71 [2]; Aquilino v United States, 10 NY2d 271, 278-280). Defendant was not entitled to pay valid business expenses or itself prior to payment of subcontractors and materialmen (see, Matter of Kawczynski, 442 F Supp 413, 415). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 129, 610 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donjon-marine-co-v-mergentime-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack