Solotaroff v. Candalupa
This text of 140 A. 305 (Solotaroff v. Candalupa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a lien claim action, and judgment is for the claimant.
The first ground for reversal is that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the lien claim on the ground that the complaint shows that the work was done and materials furnished September 1st, 1926, and the claim was not filed until January 17th, 1927, more than four months thereafter.
The lien claim is not brought up with the state of the ease and we are therefore not informed what it shows.
The complaint avers that the work was performed and the materials furnished on or about September 1st, 1926. The proofs show the last work was done and materials furnished November 28th, 1926. This would bring the filing of the lien claim and the commencement of the action within the time fixed by statute.
The next ground is error in refusing to dismiss upon the ground that a proper bill of particulars is not attached to the lien claim or the complaint.
But such bill of particulars was not required because the work and materials were furnished by a contract at a stated price for work and materials therein specified. Comp. Stat., p. 3304, § 16.
Finding no error the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
140 A. 305, 6 N.J. Misc. 201, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solotaroff-v-candalupa-nj-1928.