Moroney v. Guilder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moroney v. Guilder

199 A.D.2d 808, 608 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12212

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 808 (Moroney v. Guilder) 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

Moroney v. Guilder, 199 A.D.2d 808, 608 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Viscardi, J.), entered March 3, 1993 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) to vacate and discharge a notice of mechanic’s lien filed by respondent.

There is no evidence that petitioners and respondent have any business or contractual relationship with respect to the property involved so as to render petitioners subject to the mechanic’s lien filed by respondent. Furthermore, respondent is not a materialman as that term is defined in Lien Law § 2 (12). Due to this result, it is not necessary to decide whether respondent’s cross motion to amend the mechanic’s lien was properly denied.

[809]*809Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Viscardi, J.), entered March 3, 1993 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) to vacate and discharge a notice of mechanic’s lien filed by respondent.

There is no evidence that petitioners and respondent have any business or contractual relationship with respect to the property involved so as to render petitioners subject to the mechanic’s lien filed by respondent. Furthermore, respondent is not a materialman as that term is defined in Lien Law § 2 (12). Due to this result, it is not necessary to decide whether respondent’s cross motion to amend the mechanic’s lien was properly denied.

[809]*809Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 808, 608 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moroney-v-guilder-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack