Luzon v. Perlman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luzon v. Perlman

255 A.D.2d 162, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11888

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 162 (Luzon v. Perlman) 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

Luzon v. Perlman, 255 A.D.2d 162, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1997, which granted the motion of defendants Claire Perlman and Sidney Perlman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered thereon on December 5, 1997, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although it timely commenced this action to foreclose its mechanic’s lien, plaintiff failed timely to file a notice of pendency, and, thus, its mechanic’s lien expired as a matter of law (see, Madison Lexington Venture v Crimmins Contr. Co., 159 AD2d 256, 257, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 78 NY2d 905). Although Lien Law § 54 permits a personal judgment to be obtained based on a complaint that contains allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract, no personal liability may be found where, as here, there is no evidence of an express or implied agreement by defendants to pay plaintiff (Noce v Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347, 351-352). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1997, which granted the motion of defendants Claire Perlman and Sidney Perlman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered thereon on December 5, 1997, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although it timely commenced this action to foreclose its mechanic’s lien, plaintiff failed timely to file a notice of pendency, and, thus, its mechanic’s lien expired as a matter of law (see, Madison Lexington Venture v Crimmins Contr. Co., 159 AD2d 256, 257, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 78 NY2d 905). Although Lien Law § 54 permits a personal judgment to be obtained based on a complaint that contains allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract, no personal liability may be found where, as here, there is no evidence of an express or implied agreement by defendants to pay plaintiff (Noce v Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347, 351-352). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 162, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luzon-v-perlman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack