EFCO Corp. v. Helena Associates LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EFCO Corp. v. Helena Associates LLC

45 A.D.3d 399, 846 N.Y.S.2d 39

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 399 (EFCO Corp. v. Helena Associates LLC) 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

EFCO Corp. v. Helena Associates LLC, 45 A.D.3d 399, 846 N.Y.S.2d 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J), entered June 18, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination entered March 13, 2007, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and vacatur of plaintiffs notice of a mechanic’s lien, and granting plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint and to file an amended lien, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2007, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of June 18, 2007.

Although the notice of lien did not set forth "[t]he labor performed or materials furnished and the agreed price or value thereof,” as required by Lien Law § 9 (4), it stated the total amount of the agreed price and value that was unpaid. As no other defects were alleged with regard to the otherwise detailed notice of lien, we find that plaintiff substantially complied with the requirements of Lien Law § 9 (see Lien Law § 23), and that the court correctly concluded that the defect at issue was amendable pursuant to Lien Law § 12-a (see Matter of Nimke v Inta-State, Inc., 34 AD2d 675, 676 [1970]; Matter of Mengel Co., Inc. [Kensington Vil., Inc.], 281 App Div 530 [1953]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J), entered June 18, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination entered March 13, 2007, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and vacatur of plaintiffs notice of a mechanic’s lien, and granting plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint and to file an amended lien, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2007, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of June 18, 2007.

Although the notice of lien did not set forth "[t]he labor performed or materials furnished and the agreed price or value thereof,” as required by Lien Law § 9 (4), it stated the total amount of the agreed price and value that was unpaid. As no other defects were alleged with regard to the otherwise detailed notice of lien, we find that plaintiff substantially complied with the requirements of Lien Law § 9 (see Lien Law § 23), and that the court correctly concluded that the defect at issue was amendable pursuant to Lien Law § 12-a (see Matter of Nimke v Inta-State, Inc., 34 AD2d 675, 676 [1970]; Matter of Mengel Co., Inc. [Kensington Vil., Inc.], 281 App Div 530 [1953]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 399, 846 N.Y.S.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/efco-corp-v-helena-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack