Ruckle & Guarino, Inc. v. Hangan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruckle & Guarino, Inc. v. Hangan

49 A.D.3d 267, 852 N.Y.2d 122

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 267 (Ruckle & Guarino, Inc. v. Hangan) 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

Ruckle & Guarino, Inc. v. Hangan, 49 A.D.3d 267, 852 N.Y.2d 122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

To establish the right to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the contractor, or in this case the subcontractor, must make a prima facie case that the lien is valid, and that it is entitled to the amount asserted in the lien (8 Warren's Weed, New York Real Property § 92.11 [3] [a] [5th ed], citing Cramer v Esswein, 220 App Div 10 [1927]; see LHV Precast v Woodstock Lawn & Home Maintenance, 296 AD2d 736 [2002]). Plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment enforcing the lien. Notably, the proposal on [268]*268which plaintiff relies postdates the work performed, and plaintiffs evidence failed to establish that plaintiff is entitled to the amount asserted in the lien, i.e., $80,000. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

To establish the right to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the contractor, or in this case the subcontractor, must make a prima facie case that the lien is valid, and that it is entitled to the amount asserted in the lien (8 Warren's Weed, New York Real Property § 92.11 [3] [a] [5th ed], citing Cramer v Esswein, 220 App Div 10 [1927]; see LHV Precast v Woodstock Lawn & Home Maintenance, 296 AD2d 736 [2002]). Plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment enforcing the lien. Notably, the proposal on [268]*268which plaintiff relies postdates the work performed, and plaintiffs evidence failed to establish that plaintiff is entitled to the amount asserted in the lien, i.e., $80,000. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 267, 852 N.Y.2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruckle-guarino-inc-v-hangan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack