In re Thomas J. Dorsey, Inc.

240 A.D. 1005
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Order denying motion to permit the filing of an amended notice of mechanic’s lien, nunc pro tunc, reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. The failure to name the true owner would not be fatal even upon foreclosure of the lien. (Gates & Co. v. Nat. Fair & Exposition Assn., 225 N. Y. 142; Lien Law, § 9, subd. 7.) The difference in the amount of the appellant’s claim in the lien, as filed, and the amount specified in the proposed amended lien, is small, is in favor of the owner and is not a substantial objection. Nor is there any merit in the claim of misdescription of the property. Section 12-a of the Lien Law, added by chapter 627 of the Laws of 1932, in effect July 1, 1932, was intended to meet just such a case as this, and nothing in the brief of the respond[1006] ents, nor in the record, shows such a prejudice as to deprive the appellant of the benefit of the statute. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

In re Thomas J. Dorsey, Inc., 240 A.D. 1005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

240 A.D. 1005 (In re Thomas J. Dorsey, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marshall Construction Co. v. Brookdale Hospital Center
68 Misc. 2d 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
In re Heidi Construction Corp.
20 Misc. 2d 58 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
In re Mars Associates, Inc.
17 Misc. 2d 188 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Piscitell v. Caccamo
278 A.D. 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Clemens v. Zappala & Co.
200 Misc. 772 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
In re O'Neill
182 Misc. 838 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Rocco v. Chain Building Corp.
167 Misc. 375 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)