HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F&K Supply, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F&K Supply, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 412, 618 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 412 (HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F&K Supply, 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

HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F&K Supply, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 412, 618 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to discharge a mechanic’s lien, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fred-man, J.), entered April 13, 1993, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Lien Law § 11, a party is required to serve a notice of lien on a corporation by one of three specified methods. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the court does not have discretion to excuse noncompliance (see, Matter of PKS Dev. Co. v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 187 AD2d 656; Matter of Hui’s Realty v Transcontinental Constr. Servs., 168 AD2d 302; Murphy Constr. Corp. v Morrissey, 168 AD2d 877). The appellant served the notice of lien on the petitioner by service on the Secretary of State, a method of service which is not authorized by Lien Law § 11. Since the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the statute, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to discharge the lien. There is no merit to the appellant’s contention that the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the validity of the lien (see, Matter of Northport Marina Assocs. v Cashman, Inc., 146 Bankr 60). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to discharge a mechanic’s lien, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fred-man, J.), entered April 13, 1993, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Lien Law § 11, a party is required to serve a notice of lien on a corporation by one of three specified methods. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the court does not have discretion to excuse noncompliance (see, Matter of PKS Dev. Co. v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 187 AD2d 656; Matter of Hui’s Realty v Transcontinental Constr. Servs., 168 AD2d 302; Murphy Constr. Corp. v Morrissey, 168 AD2d 877). The appellant served the notice of lien on the petitioner by service on the Secretary of State, a method of service which is not authorized by Lien Law § 11. Since the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the statute, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to discharge the lien. There is no merit to the appellant’s contention that the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the validity of the lien (see, Matter of Northport Marina Assocs. v Cashman, Inc., 146 Bankr 60). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 412, 618 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hmb-acquisition-corp-v-fk-supply-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack