V.A.L. Floors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

V.A.L. Floors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

300 A.D.2d 29, 750 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11709

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2002·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 1, 2001, after a nonjury trial, in favor of the defendant and against plaintiff dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action to recover upon a mechanic’s lien was properly dismissed, since plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish that the last work performed or materials furnished under the contracts at issue was performed or furnished within the eight-month period preceding the filing of the lien (see Lien Law § 10). Plaintiff’s proof was not adequate to demonstrate that the work and materials allegedly provided by it within the statutorily crucial eight-month period were provided pursuant to the terms of the relevant contracts or at the contracting party’s request (see George Colon & Co. v Hassenpflug, 197 App Div 522, affd 233 NY 670).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 1, 2001, after a nonjury trial, in favor of the defendant and against plaintiff dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action to recover upon a mechanic’s lien was properly dismissed, since plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish that the last work performed or materials furnished under the contracts at issue was performed or furnished within the eight-month period preceding the filing of the lien (see Lien Law § 10). Plaintiff’s proof was not adequate to demonstrate that the work and materials allegedly provided by it within the statutorily crucial eight-month period were provided pursuant to the terms of the relevant contracts or at the contracting party’s request (see George Colon & Co. v Hassenpflug, 197 App Div 522, affd 233 NY 670).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

V.A.L. Floors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 300 A.D.2d 29, 750 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 29 (V.A.L. Floors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related