W. E. Blume, Inc. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.

265 A.D. 1062, 39 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 8, 1943·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The complaint shows that a former defendant, Roxbury, was a contractor, plaintiff a subcontractor, and the appellant an owner, all within the meaning of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Lien Law. Under such facts, no lien may attach if the owner has discharged his obligation to the contractor, and it appears that that has been done. The fact that an owner has knowledge of or acquiesces in a subcontractor’s performing work on the owner’s property is not in itself sufficient to create a right to a lien, where there is a fully performed contract for the same work between the owner and the contractor. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.

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

W. E. Blume, Inc. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 265 A.D. 1062, 39 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

265 A.D. 1062 (W. E. Blume, Inc. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Broadway Houston Mack Development, LLC v. Kohl
71 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Broadway Houston Mack Development LLC v. Ted Kohl
22 Misc. 3d 1001 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Frink v. Bierau
27 Misc. 2d 701 (New York County Courts, 1961)