Iko Contracting Corp. v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iko Contracting Corp. v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

282 A.D.2d 652, 723 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3964

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 652 (Iko Contracting Corp. v. Kel-Tech Construction, 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

Iko Contracting Corp. v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 652, 723 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., and Amwest Surety Insurance Company appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 17, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to confirm a report of a Judicial Hearing Officer dated August 27, 1999, finding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $53,652.76 from the appellants, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $53,652.76, and dismissed their counterclaims.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the actual value of materials and labor supplied was proper (see, Alyea v Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 12 App Div 574, affd 162 NY 597; Abbott v Easton, 195 NY 372), and the amount awarded was supported by the record (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 493-494; Harrison v Rubenfeld, 211 AD2d 698).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants Kel-Tech Construction, Inc., and Amwest Surety Insurance Company appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 17, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to confirm a report of a Judicial Hearing Officer dated August 27, 1999, finding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $53,652.76 from the appellants, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $53,652.76, and dismissed their counterclaims.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the actual value of materials and labor supplied was proper (see, Alyea v Citizens’ Sav. Bank, 12 App Div 574, affd 162 NY 597; Abbott v Easton, 195 NY 372), and the amount awarded was supported by the record (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 493-494; Harrison v Rubenfeld, 211 AD2d 698).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 652, 723 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iko-contracting-corp-v-kel-tech-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack