New Rochelle Contracting Corp. v. American Steel Erectors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New Rochelle Contracting Corp. v. American Steel Erectors, Inc.

304 A.D.2d 581, 758 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3724

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

DecidedApril 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 581 (New Rochelle Contracting Corp. v. American Steel Erectors, Inc.) 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

New Rochelle Contracting Corp. v. American Steel Erectors, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 581, 758 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 21 (5) to discharge a public improvement mechanics’ lien, American Steel Erectors, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated April 24, 2002, as denied those branches of its motion which were, in effect, to direct the petitioners to comply with its demand for a verified statement pursuant to Lien Law § 76 (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Lien [582]*582Law § 21 (5) to discharge a public improvement mechanics’ lien. In opposition, American Steel Erectors, Inc. (hereinafter American Steel) moved, inter alia, for a temporary stay of the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with its demand for a verified statement under the trust fund provisions of the Lien Law (see Lien Law § 76 [5]).

The Supreme Court properly declined to stay the proceeding. A lienor may pursue both its trust fund remedies under Lien Law article 3-A and its ordinary remedies in enforcing the lien (see Lien Law § 79; International Assn. of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local No. 26 Welfare Fund, Pension Fund & Annuity Fund v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 234 AD2d 930 [1996]; Matter of Walker & Co. v Shelter Programs Co., 84 AD2d 536 [1981]; Matter of Merv Blank, Inc. v Dwyer, 50 AD2d 563 [1975]; Matter of Radory Constr. Corp. v Arronbee Constr. Corp., 24 AD2d 573 [1965]; Matter of Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co. v Ermco Erectors, 79 Misc 2d 142 [1974]). American Steel’s proper remedy is to commence a proceeding to compel the service of a verified statement (see Lien Law § 76 [5]; Scriven v Maple Knoll Apts., 46 AD2d 210, 213 [1974]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 21 (5) to discharge a public improvement mechanics’ lien, American Steel Erectors, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated April 24, 2002, as denied those branches of its motion which were, in effect, to direct the petitioners to comply with its demand for a verified statement pursuant to Lien Law § 76 (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Lien [582]*582Law § 21 (5) to discharge a public improvement mechanics’ lien. In opposition, American Steel Erectors, Inc. (hereinafter American Steel) moved, inter alia, for a temporary stay of the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with its demand for a verified statement under the trust fund provisions of the Lien Law (see Lien Law § 76 [5]).

The Supreme Court properly declined to stay the proceeding. A lienor may pursue both its trust fund remedies under Lien Law article 3-A and its ordinary remedies in enforcing the lien (see Lien Law § 79; International Assn. of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local No. 26 Welfare Fund, Pension Fund & Annuity Fund v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 234 AD2d 930 [1996]; Matter of Walker & Co. v Shelter Programs Co., 84 AD2d 536 [1981]; Matter of Merv Blank, Inc. v Dwyer, 50 AD2d 563 [1975]; Matter of Radory Constr. Corp. v Arronbee Constr. Corp., 24 AD2d 573 [1965]; Matter of Poughkeepsie Iron & Metal Co. v Ermco Erectors, 79 Misc 2d 142 [1974]). American Steel’s proper remedy is to commence a proceeding to compel the service of a verified statement (see Lien Law § 76 [5]; Scriven v Maple Knoll Apts., 46 AD2d 210, 213 [1974]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 581, 758 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-rochelle-contracting-corp-v-american-steel-erectors-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack