William Saloy, Inc. v. Luhrs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William Saloy, Inc. v. Luhrs

284 A.D. 908, 134 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D. 908 (William Saloy, Inc. v. Luhrs) 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

William Saloy, Inc. v. Luhrs, 284 A.D. 908, 134 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work, labor, and materials furnished towards the erection of a gasoline station, pursuant to a contract with the lessee of the unimproved property in question, with the consent of defendant, the owner. Before the station was substantially completed, plaintiff had ceased construction upon the order of the lessee, who failed to pay for the work done. The trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish that the work was done “ with the consent or at the request of the owner ” within the meaning of section 3 of the Lien Law, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. While we are of the opinion that the evidence did establish the required consent of the owner to the erection of a gasoline station (ef. Jones v. Menlce, 168 N. Y. 61), since he did not cause the failure substantially to complete the contract he may not be held (New York Elevator Supply & Bepaw Go. v. Bremer, 74 App. Div. 400, affd. 175 N. Y. 520; McNulty Bros. V. Offerman, 152 App. Div. 181; Mitchell v. Dunmore Bealty Go., 126 App. Div. 829). Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ. [See post, p. 1049.]

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

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work, labor, and materials furnished towards the erection of a gasoline station, pursuant to a contract with the lessee of the unimproved property in question, with the consent of defendant, the owner. Before the station was substantially completed, plaintiff had ceased construction upon the order of the lessee, who failed to pay for the work done. The trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish that the work was done “ with the consent or at the request of the owner ” within the meaning of section 3 of the Lien Law, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. While we are of the opinion that the evidence did establish the required consent of the owner to the erection of a gasoline station (ef. Jones v. Menlce, 168 N. Y. 61), since he did not cause the failure substantially to complete the contract he may not be held (New York Elevator Supply & Bepaw Go. v. Bremer, 74 App. Div. 400, affd. 175 N. Y. 520; McNulty Bros. V. Offerman, 152 App. Div. 181; Mitchell v. Dunmore Bealty Go., 126 App. Div. 829). Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ. [See post, p. 1049.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 908, 134 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-saloy-inc-v-luhrs-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack