Oakdale 36 Unit Corp. v. Maytal Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oakdale 36 Unit Corp. v. Maytal Construction Corp.

198 A.D.2d 418, 605 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10927

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 418 (Oakdale 36 Unit Corp. v. Maytal Construction Corp.) 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

Oakdale 36 Unit Corp. v. Maytal Construction Corp., 198 A.D.2d 418, 605 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) to discharge a mechanic’s lien, Maytal Construction Corp. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which discharged the lien.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly searched the record (see, CPLR 409 [b]), and determined that the subject lien is premised on claims beyond the purview of the Lien Law (see, Matter of FCZ Corp. v Blais Deli, 135 AD2d 535). Summary discharge of the lien was therefore proper because it failed to comply with the requirements of Lien Law § 9 (see, Lien Law § 19 [6]; cf., Pascual v Greenleaf Park Land Co., 245 NY 294; 16 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 97:50). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 § 19 (6) to discharge a mechanic’s lien, Maytal Construction Corp. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which discharged the lien.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly searched the record (see, CPLR 409 [b]), and determined that the subject lien is premised on claims beyond the purview of the Lien Law (see, Matter of FCZ Corp. v Blais Deli, 135 AD2d 535). Summary discharge of the lien was therefore proper because it failed to comply with the requirements of Lien Law § 9 (see, Lien Law § 19 [6]; cf., Pascual v Greenleaf Park Land Co., 245 NY 294; 16 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 97:50). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 418, 605 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakdale-36-unit-corp-v-maytal-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack