Hi-Tech Bridging, Inc. v. 125th Street Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hi-Tech Bridging, Inc. v. 125th Street Equities, Inc.

134 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 736

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 2015·No. 16277 600668/08·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered May 21, 2014, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a new notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek to foreclose on mechanic’s liens. The notice of pendency filed in this action, however, has expired, and plaintiffs did not seek to extend the notice before its expiration. An expired notice of pendency is a nullity and may not be revived (Matter of Sakow, 97 NY2d 436, 442 [2002]). Because the liens at issue terminated upon the expiration of the notice (see Lien Law § 17), the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint against defendant and correctly determined that plaintiffs’ cross motion is “devoid of merit” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered May 21, 2014, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a new notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek to foreclose on mechanic’s liens. The notice of pendency filed in this action, however, has expired, and plaintiffs did not seek to extend the notice before its expiration. An expired notice of pendency is a nullity and may not be revived (Matter of Sakow, 97 NY2d 436, 442 [2002]). Because the liens at issue terminated upon the expiration of the notice (see Lien Law § 17), the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint against defendant and correctly determined that plaintiffs’ cross motion is “devoid of merit” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Hi-Tech Bridging, Inc. v. 125th Street Equities, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 438 (Hi-Tech Bridging, Inc. v. 125th Street Equities, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related