Pontos Renovation Inc. v. Kitano Arms Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pontos Renovation Inc. v. Kitano Arms Corp.

204 A.D.2d 87, 611 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedMay 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 87 (Pontos Renovation Inc. v. Kitano Arms 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

Pontos Renovation Inc. v. Kitano Arms Corp., 204 A.D.2d 87, 611 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered March 10, 1993 which summarily vacated the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien, unanimously reversed, on the law, the lien reinstated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, with costs and disbursements.

The trial court concluded that the dispositive issue on the motion was "whether the owner, Kitano, consented to plaintiff’s work on the project”. Apart from the fact that the evidence presented to the trial court merely raises an issue of fact as to whether such consent was given, it is clear that the issue, in any event, was not one that could be resolved upon defendant’s motion to vacate the lien. It has been stated that "[i]n the absence of a defect upon the face of the notice of lien, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial of the foreclosure action” (Care Sys. v Laramee, 155 AD2d 770, 771). In Care Sys. v Laramee (supra, at 771), the critical issue was "whether defendant requested or consented to the performance of the extras as alleged by plaintiff”. The Court therein concluded that the issue could not be resolved on defendant’s motion to summarily vacate the lien, but had to be determined at trial. The same result is required in this case. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered March 10, 1993 which summarily vacated the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien, unanimously reversed, on the law, the lien reinstated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, with costs and disbursements.

The trial court concluded that the dispositive issue on the motion was "whether the owner, Kitano, consented to plaintiff’s work on the project”. Apart from the fact that the evidence presented to the trial court merely raises an issue of fact as to whether such consent was given, it is clear that the issue, in any event, was not one that could be resolved upon defendant’s motion to vacate the lien. It has been stated that "[i]n the absence of a defect upon the face of the notice of lien, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial of the foreclosure action” (Care Sys. v Laramee, 155 AD2d 770, 771). In Care Sys. v Laramee (supra, at 771), the critical issue was "whether defendant requested or consented to the performance of the extras as alleged by plaintiff”. The Court therein concluded that the issue could not be resolved on defendant’s motion to summarily vacate the lien, but had to be determined at trial. The same result is required in this case. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 87, 611 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pontos-renovation-inc-v-kitano-arms-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack