BROADWAY PT 1710 LLC v. KINGDOM ASSOCIATES INC (2026)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered April 9, 2025, which granted the petition for summary discharge of a mechanic's lien and denied respondent's cross-motion to dismiss, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the petition denied, the cross-motion granted, and this proceeding, brought pursuant to Lien Law §§ 19(6) and 38, dismissed.

The court should not have granted the petition for summary discharge of the mechanic's lien that respondent placed on petitioner's property.  As relevant here, summary discharge of a lien is available “[w]here it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished and for which a lien is claimed” (Lien Law § 19[6] ).  “[A] lien may be summarily discharged only for defects appearing on its face” (Matter of Di–Com Corp. v Active Fire Sprinkler Corp., 36 A.D.2d 20, 21 [1st Dept 1971] ), and “any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial of the foreclosure action” (Care Sys. v. Laramee, 155 A.D.2d 770, 771 [3d Dept 1989];  see also Matter of Northside Tower Realty, LLC v Klin Constr.  Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2d Dept 2010] [“A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6)”] ).

Petitioner identifies no defect appearing on the face of the notice of lien, raising instead lack of consent and other issues related to the validity of the lien.  Those issues cannot be resolved under Lien Law § 19(6) (see Pontos Renovation v. Kitano Arms Corp., 204 A.D.2d 87, 87 [1st Dept 1994];  see also Slazer Enters.  Owner, LLC v Gotham Greenwich Constr.  Co., LLC, 50 AD3d 341, 341 [1st Dept 2008];  Aaron v. Great Bay Contr., 290 A.D.2d 326, 326 [1st Dept 2002] ).  Lien Law § 38 does not provide alternative grounds to affirm the lien discharge, as no court has issued an order requiring respondent to provide an itemized statement (cf.  LV Constr.  Servs.  LLC v Manhattan Professional Group, Inc., 149 AD3d 640, 641 [1st Dept 2017];  J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. v Terra Firma Constr.  Mgt. & Gen. Contr., LLC, 14 AD3d 538, 541 [2d Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 878 [2005] ).

As to respondent's cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), we reverse in the exercise of our own discretion (see SafeCard Servs. v American Express Travel Related Servs.  Co., 203 A.D.2d 65, 65–66 [1st Dept 1994] ).  Respondent commenced a lien foreclosure action against petitioner before petitioner brought this summary discharge proceeding.  Petitioner raised the same objections in both proceedings, and petitioner has counterclaimed in the foreclosure action to void the lien, among other things (see Matter of 29–32 LLC v Neptune Contr.   & Envtl., Inc., 72 AD3d 1106, 1106 [2d Dept 2010] ).