Rebar Lathing Corp. v. Century Maxim Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rebar Lathing Corp. v. Century Maxim Construction Corp.

104 A.D.3d 406, 959 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 406 (Rebar Lathing Corp. v. Century Maxim 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

Rebar Lathing Corp. v. Century Maxim Construction Corp., 104 A.D.3d 406, 959 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered July 13, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied that branch of defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs fourth cause of action as against defendant owner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff subcontractor filed a valid mechanic’s lien against the premises, which, given the absence of any contractual privity, provides a basis for its claim against the owner for trust violations under article 3-A of the Lien Law (see Lien Law § 71 [3] [a]; see Quantum Corporate Funding v L.P.G. Assoc., 246 AD2d 320, 322 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 814 [1998]; see also Spectrum Painting Contrs., Inc. v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., Inc., 64 AD3d 565, 576 [2d Dept 2009]; Weber v Welch, 246 AD2d 782, 784 [3d Dept 1998]).

We have considered the owner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered July 13, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied that branch of defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs fourth cause of action as against defendant owner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff subcontractor filed a valid mechanic’s lien against the premises, which, given the absence of any contractual privity, provides a basis for its claim against the owner for trust violations under article 3-A of the Lien Law (see Lien Law § 71 [3] [a]; see Quantum Corporate Funding v L.P.G. Assoc., 246 AD2d 320, 322 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 814 [1998]; see also Spectrum Painting Contrs., Inc. v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., Inc., 64 AD3d 565, 576 [2d Dept 2009]; Weber v Welch, 246 AD2d 782, 784 [3d Dept 1998]).

We have considered the owner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 406, 959 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rebar-lathing-corp-v-century-maxim-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack