Hansen Excavating Co. v. Comet Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen Excavating Co. v. Comet Construction Corp.

14 A.D.2d 911, 222 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 911 (Hansen Excavating Co. v. Comet Construction 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

Hansen Excavating Co. v. Comet Construction Corp., 14 A.D.2d 911, 222 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

The subcontractor’s claim admittedly became payable on April 5,1961. Its request for the statement was mailed to the general contractor on May 2, 1961 and received by it on May 4, 1961. Since less than 30 days had expired after the subcontractor’s claim became payable, the request was premature (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 1). The subcontractor was not entitled to an order directing compliance with its request unless the request was “served as provided in this section” (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 5). Furthermore, the affidavit in support of the application was made by an attorney for the applicant; application for orders such as these must be made “upon affidavits of the parties” (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 5). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

The subcontractor’s claim admittedly became payable on April 5,1961. Its request for the statement was mailed to the general contractor on May 2, 1961 and received by it on May 4, 1961. Since less than 30 days had expired after the subcontractor’s claim became payable, the request was premature (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 1). The subcontractor was not entitled to an order directing compliance with its request unless the request was “served as provided in this section” (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 5). Furthermore, the affidavit in support of the application was made by an attorney for the applicant; application for orders such as these must be made “upon affidavits of the parties” (Lien Law, § 76, subd. 5). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 911, 222 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-excavating-co-v-comet-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1961.