Windsor Metal Fabrications, Ltd. v. Reynolds Metal Development, Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Windsor Metal Fabrications, Ltd. v. Reynolds Metal Development, Co.

262 A.D.2d 404, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6337

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 404 (Windsor Metal Fabrications, Ltd. v. Reynolds Metal Development, Co.) 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

Windsor Metal Fabrications, Ltd. v. Reynolds Metal Development, Co., 262 A.D.2d 404, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff, Windsor Metal [405]*405Fabrications, Ltd., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated May 11, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs second cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since the construction drawings on which the plaintiffs mechanic’s lien is based were not prepared by an architect, engineer, or surveyor, as required under Lien Law § 2 (4), the Supreme Court properly dismissed the second cause of action, which sought foreclosure of the lien (cf., Matter of Di-Com Corp. v Active Fire Sprinkler Corp., 36 AD2d 20, 21). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff, Windsor Metal [405]*405Fabrications, Ltd., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated May 11, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs second cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since the construction drawings on which the plaintiffs mechanic’s lien is based were not prepared by an architect, engineer, or surveyor, as required under Lien Law § 2 (4), the Supreme Court properly dismissed the second cause of action, which sought foreclosure of the lien (cf., Matter of Di-Com Corp. v Active Fire Sprinkler Corp., 36 AD2d 20, 21). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 404, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windsor-metal-fabrications-ltd-v-reynolds-metal-development-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack