Matros Automated Electrical Const. Corp. v. Libman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matros Automated Electrical Const. Corp. v. Libman

37 A.D.3d 313, 830 N.Y.S.2d 127

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 313 (Matros Automated Electrical Const. Corp. v. Libman) 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

Matros Automated Electrical Const. Corp. v. Libman, 37 A.D.3d 313, 830 N.Y.S.2d 127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 28, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify this as a class action and granted the cross motion of defendants 230 Park Investors and Tokio Marine Management for summary judgment dismissing the third, sixth, ninth and twelfth causes of action and cancelling plaintiffs’ mechanic’s liens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that no funds were due and owing from the building owner to the general contractor at the time of the filing of the liens (see Lien Law § 4 [1]; Albert J. Bunce, Ltd. v Fahey, 73 AD2d 632 [1979]), and plaintiffs failed to raise any issues of fact in opposition. Under the circumstances, notwithstanding its principal’s apparent assertion to the contrary, the general contractor was intended to be just that, though also a tenant whose premises were the subject of its work under its lease (see McNulty Bros. v Offerman, 221 NY 98 [1917]).

The court properly denied the motion for class certification, which was untimely (see Shah v Wilco Sys., Inc., 27 AD3d 169, 173 [2005], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 7 NY3d 859 [2006]). In any event, the court properly exercised its discretion (see Lien Law § 77 [1]; Rabouin v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 349, 350 [2006]) in denying class action certification in the absence of merit to the underlying claims (cf Simon v Cunard Line, 75 AD2d 283, 288 [1980]), and in light of the failure to set forth evidentiary facts to support such request (see Nachbaur v American Tr. Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 74, 75 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 576 [2003], cert denied sub nom. Moore v American Tr. Ins. Co., 538 US 987 [2003]), and in light of the predominance of individual issues. Concur—Friedman, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 28, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify this as a class action and granted the cross motion of defendants 230 Park Investors and Tokio Marine Management for summary judgment dismissing the third, sixth, ninth and twelfth causes of action and cancelling plaintiffs’ mechanic’s liens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that no funds were due and owing from the building owner to the general contractor at the time of the filing of the liens (see Lien Law § 4 [1]; Albert J. Bunce, Ltd. v Fahey, 73 AD2d 632 [1979]), and plaintiffs failed to raise any issues of fact in opposition. Under the circumstances, notwithstanding its principal’s apparent assertion to the contrary, the general contractor was intended to be just that, though also a tenant whose premises were the subject of its work under its lease (see McNulty Bros. v Offerman, 221 NY 98 [1917]).

The court properly denied the motion for class certification, which was untimely (see Shah v Wilco Sys., Inc., 27 AD3d 169, 173 [2005], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 7 NY3d 859 [2006]). In any event, the court properly exercised its discretion (see Lien Law § 77 [1]; Rabouin v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 349, 350 [2006]) in denying class action certification in the absence of merit to the underlying claims (cf Simon v Cunard Line, 75 AD2d 283, 288 [1980]), and in light of the failure to set forth evidentiary facts to support such request (see Nachbaur v American Tr. Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 74, 75 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 576 [2003], cert denied sub nom. Moore v American Tr. Ins. Co., 538 US 987 [2003]), and in light of the predominance of individual issues. Concur—Friedman, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 313, 830 N.Y.S.2d 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matros-automated-electrical-const-corp-v-libman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack