P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Alizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Alizio

52 A.D.2d 919, 383 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 919 (P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Alizio) 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

P. J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Alizio, 52 A.D.2d 919, 383 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 12, 1975, after a nonjury trial, as (1) is in favor of plaintiff and against them and (2) adjudged that the lien was valid and subsisting. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the decision of the trial court with respect to the issues raised on this appeal was correct and is fully supported by the evidence. It is obvious that as the owner did not pay to the contractor the amounts due under the raw-cost-without-profit agreement, the contractor concluded—in good faith—that he was entitled to claim the reasonable value of the material and labor—including a percentage for overhead and profit. This accounts for what appellants incorrectly characterize as "willful exaggeration”, an "exaggeration” which evaporates when the overhead and profit percentages are applied to (i.e., deducted from) the reasonable value of material and labor figures claimed in the notice of lien, rather than added to a figure ($2,299.99) which represents a difference between other figures. Willful exaggeration was clearly not established (see E-J Elec. Installation Co. v Miller & Raved, 51 AD2d 264). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 12, 1975, after a nonjury trial, as (1) is in favor of plaintiff and against them and (2) adjudged that the lien was valid and subsisting. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the decision of the trial court with respect to the issues raised on this appeal was correct and is fully supported by the evidence. It is obvious that as the owner did not pay to the contractor the amounts due under the raw-cost-without-profit agreement, the contractor concluded—in good faith—that he was entitled to claim the reasonable value of the material and labor—including a percentage for overhead and profit. This accounts for what appellants incorrectly characterize as "willful exaggeration”, an "exaggeration” which evaporates when the overhead and profit percentages are applied to (i.e., deducted from) the reasonable value of material and labor figures claimed in the notice of lien, rather than added to a figure ($2,299.99) which represents a difference between other figures. Willful exaggeration was clearly not established (see E-J Elec. Installation Co. v Miller & Raved, 51 AD2d 264). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 919, 383 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-j-panzeca-inc-v-alizio-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack