Rivera v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York

130 A.D.3d 802, 12 N.Y.S.3d 574

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

DecidedJuly 15, 2015

Docket2014-01607

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 802 (Rivera v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York) 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

Rivera v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York, 130 A.D.3d 802, 12 N.Y.S.3d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to vacate a mechanic’s lien and for related declaratory relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated September 6, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19 (6) (see Lane Constr. Co., Inc. v Chayat, 117 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Gold Dev. & Mgt., LLC v P.J. Contr. Corp., 74 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2010]). Lien Law § 19 enumerates the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement (see Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Northside Tower Realty, LLC v Klin Constr. Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1072 [2010]; Matter of Lowe, 4 AD3d 476 [2004]). Where, as here, the notice of lien was not invalid on its face, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure (see Lane Constr. Co., Inc. v Chayat, 117 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Gold Dev. & Mgt., LLC v P.J. Contr. Corp., 74 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2010]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defend *803 ant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to vacate a mechanic’s lien and for related declaratory relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated September 6, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19 (6) (see Lane Constr. Co., Inc. v Chayat, 117 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Gold Dev. & Mgt., LLC v P.J. Contr. Corp., 74 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2010]). Lien Law § 19 enumerates the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement (see Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Northside Tower Realty, LLC v Klin Constr. Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1072 [2010]; Matter of Lowe, 4 AD3d 476 [2004]). Where, as here, the notice of lien was not invalid on its face, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure (see Lane Constr. Co., Inc. v Chayat, 117 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Luckyland [N.Y.], LLC v Core Cont. Constr., LLC, 83 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2011]; Matter of Gold Dev. & Mgt., LLC v P.J. Contr. Corp., 74 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2010]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defend *803 ant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 802, 12 N.Y.S.3d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-department-of-hous-preserv-dev-of-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack