George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC v. Associated Specialty Contracting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC v. Associated Specialty Contracting, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 2913, 149 A.D.3d 525, 52 N.Y.S.3d 321

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

DecidedApril 13, 2017

Docket3731N 150549/16

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2913 (George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC v. Associated Specialty Contracting, Inc.) 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

George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC v. Associated Specialty Contracting, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 2913, 149 A.D.3d 525, 52 N.Y.S.3d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted the petition to discharge respondent’s mechanic’s lien on the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly granted the petition to discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by respondent. It is well-settled that a private mechanic’s lien may not attach to privately-leased, but *526 publicly-owned, land (see Matter of Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club v Zarrelli, 57 NY2d 966, 968 [1982], revg on concurring in part, dissenting in part op of Hopkins, J., 83 AD2d 444, 452 [2d Dept 1981]; Avon Elec. Supplies v Voltaic Elec. Co., 203 AD2d 404, 405 [2d Dept 1994]; T.N.T. Coatings v County of Nassau, 114 AD2d 1027, 1028 [2d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 608 [1986]). Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), the owner of the subject property, is a “public corporation” within the contemplation of the Lien Law, the George Washington Bridge Bus Station constituted a “public improvement” within the meaning of the Lien Law, despite petitioner’s private leasehold interest in the property (Lien Law § 2 [8]; General Construction Law § 66 [1], [4]; see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]; Matter of Carland Constr. Co. v Infilco Degremont, 152 AD2d 694, 695 [2d Dept 1989]).

Respondent’s reliance on the exception to the general rule, provided by Lien Law § 2 (7), is misplaced, inasmuch as that section applies only to property owned by Industrial Development Agencies, which the Port Authority is not (see Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v Wyoming County Indus. Dev. Agency, 85 NY2d 281, 287 [1995]; Matter of PMNC v Brothers Insulation Co., 266 AD2d 293, 294 [2d Dept 1999]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted the petition to discharge respondent’s mechanic’s lien on the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly granted the petition to discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by respondent. It is well-settled that a private mechanic’s lien may not attach to privately-leased, but *526 publicly-owned, land (see Matter of Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club v Zarrelli, 57 NY2d 966, 968 [1982], revg on concurring in part, dissenting in part op of Hopkins, J., 83 AD2d 444, 452 [2d Dept 1981]; Avon Elec. Supplies v Voltaic Elec. Co., 203 AD2d 404, 405 [2d Dept 1994]; T.N.T. Coatings v County of Nassau, 114 AD2d 1027, 1028 [2d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 608 [1986]). Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), the owner of the subject property, is a “public corporation” within the contemplation of the Lien Law, the George Washington Bridge Bus Station constituted a “public improvement” within the meaning of the Lien Law, despite petitioner’s private leasehold interest in the property (Lien Law § 2 [8]; General Construction Law § 66 [1], [4]; see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]; Matter of Carland Constr. Co. v Infilco Degremont, 152 AD2d 694, 695 [2d Dept 1989]).

Respondent’s reliance on the exception to the general rule, provided by Lien Law § 2 (7), is misplaced, inasmuch as that section applies only to property owned by Industrial Development Agencies, which the Port Authority is not (see Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v Wyoming County Indus. Dev. Agency, 85 NY2d 281, 287 [1995]; Matter of PMNC v Brothers Insulation Co., 266 AD2d 293, 294 [2d Dept 1999]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2913, 149 A.D.3d 525, 52 N.Y.S.3d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-washington-bridge-bus-station-development-venture-llc-v-associated-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack