Johnson v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Robertson

63 A.D.3d 690, 879 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedJune 2, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 690 (Johnson v. Robertson) 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

Johnson v. Robertson, 63 A.D.3d 690, 879 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated October 31, 2008, which denied his motion to vacate a notice of mechanic’s lien filed by the defendant Robertson Contracting and granted the defendants’ cross motion pursuant to Lien Law § 12-a (2) to amend the notice of mechanic’s lien nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the misdescriptions in the notice of mechanic’s lien did not render the notice jurisdictionally defective and were properly corrected by amendment pursuant to Lien" Law § 12-a (2) (see Manniello v Ghadimi, 279 AD2d 460 [2001]; Matter of Corina Assoc. v McManus, Longe, Brockwehl, 39 AD2d 613 [1972]; Matter of Murdock v Kleist, 250 App Div 127 [1937]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated October 31, 2008, which denied his motion to vacate a notice of mechanic’s lien filed by the defendant Robertson Contracting and granted the defendants’ cross motion pursuant to Lien Law § 12-a (2) to amend the notice of mechanic’s lien nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the misdescriptions in the notice of mechanic’s lien did not render the notice jurisdictionally defective and were properly corrected by amendment pursuant to Lien" Law § 12-a (2) (see Manniello v Ghadimi, 279 AD2d 460 [2001]; Matter of Corina Assoc. v McManus, Longe, Brockwehl, 39 AD2d 613 [1972]; Matter of Murdock v Kleist, 250 App Div 127 [1937]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 690, 879 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-robertson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack