Finger v. Roth Bros. Regal Restaurant Supply Corp.

2 Misc. 2d 944, 150 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2139
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 Misc. 2d 944 (Finger v. Roth Bros. Regal Restaurant Supply Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Finger v. Roth Bros. Regal Restaurant Supply Corp., 2 Misc. 2d 944, 150 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2139 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Opinion

L. Barron Hill, J.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment. The complaint seeks to plead a cause of action under section 39-a of the Lien Law. This section recites in part: ‘‘ Where in any action or proceeding to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon a private or public improvement the court shall have declared said lien to be void on account of wilful exaggeration' the person filing such notice of lien shall be liable in damages to the owner or contractor.”

The defendant filed a mechanic’s lien against plaintiffs. Subsequently an order was entered in this court, on default, discharging the lien. It was alleged by the lienees (plaintiffs herein), on said motion, that the lien was willfully exaggerated. Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced this separate action to recover the damages set forth in section 39-a of the Lien Law including the full amount of the lien of $6,750 and now seek summary judgment for $8,000.

At no time has the defendant commenced an action to enforce the lien, and at no time has there been a judicial determination of willful exaggeration in a foreclosure action as is required. (Durand Realty Co. v. Stolman, 197 Misc. 208, affd. 280 App. Div. 758.)

On a motion for summary judgment the court can grant judgment for either party even absent a cross motion for that purpose. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113.)

Where the complaint fails to state a cause of action defendant is entitled to summary judgment. (Bell v. Salkind, 198 Misc. 613; cf., Rainville v. Keil, 148 Misc. 795.)

I find no authority for the action which plaintiffs have commenced and the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The remedy afforded to lienees by [946]*946section 39-a of the Lien Law is available only when the lienor seeks to enforce his lien.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is denied and summary judgment dismissing the complaint is awarded defendant.

Settle order.

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

Related

Great American Restoration Services, Inc. v. Flaton
48 Misc. 3d 78 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tully Construction Company, Inc. v. United Minerals, Inc.
221 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Sony Corp. of America v. American Express Co.
115 Misc. 2d 1060 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Misc. 2d 944, 150 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finger-v-roth-bros-regal-restaurant-supply-corp-nysupct-1956.