Levin v. Hessberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levin v. Hessberg

135 A.D. 155, 119 N.Y.S. 1021, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3931

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 A.D. 155 (Levin v. Hessberg) 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

Levin v. Hessberg, 135 A.D. 155, 119 N.Y.S. 1021, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Clarke, J.:

. This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and resulted in' a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $975. The notice filed was not a valid lien. “Under the statute any notice of lien must state, either explicitly or by plain inference, the value or the agreed price of the labor performed or materials furnished at the time of filing thereof.” (Finn v. Smith, 186 N. Y. 465.)

The notice at bar did not comply with this requirement. An, [156]*156equitable action depends upon a valid lien. That riot existing; this judgment cannot be sustained. Nor can a personal judgment be directed upon this record. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in writing under which the plaintiff was to repair the damages caused by fire to the defendant’s property for the agreed price of $2,600. It was admitted that the "contract was not completed. Instead of proving the value of the work and materials actually furnished the plaintiff undertook to prove his case by testimony of the value of the work not done which he claimed to amount to $350 and - subtracting that from the contract price of $2,600. .

The court found the value of the work not done to be $625, and subtracting that and the conceded payment of $1,000 from the contract price, found the.sum of $975 was due. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence as to what the plaintiff did do and as to its condition when he ceased work. ’

We are satisfied that a personal judgment could not be sustained upon this record. ■ It follows, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, to proceed as an action in personam, with costs to the appellant to abide.the event.

Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, Laughlin and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered as of an action in personayi, costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Clarke, J.:

. This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and resulted in' a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $975. The notice filed was not a valid lien. “Under the statute any notice of lien must state, either explicitly or by plain inference, the value or the agreed price of the labor performed or materials furnished at the time of filing thereof.” (Finn v. Smith, 186 N. Y. 465.)

The notice at bar did not comply with this requirement. An, [156]*156equitable action depends upon a valid lien. That riot existing; this judgment cannot be sustained. Nor can a personal judgment be directed upon this record. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in writing under which the plaintiff was to repair the damages caused by fire to the defendant’s property for the agreed price of $2,600. It was admitted that the "contract was not completed. Instead of proving the value of the work and materials actually furnished the plaintiff undertook to prove his case by testimony of the value of the work not done which he claimed to amount to $350 and - subtracting that from the contract price of $2,600. .

The court found the value of the work not done to be $625, and subtracting that and the conceded payment of $1,000 from the contract price, found the.sum of $975 was due. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence as to what the plaintiff did do and as to its condition when he ceased work. ’

We are satisfied that a personal judgment could not be sustained upon this record. ■ It follows, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, to proceed as an action in personam, with costs to the appellant to abide.the event.

Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, Laughlin and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered as of an action in personayi, costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D. 155, 119 N.Y.S. 1021, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-hessberg-nyappdiv-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack