Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AJ CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FARMORE REALTY INC., etc., et al., Defendants,
The American Casualty Company of Reading, PA., Defendant–Appellant. PRG Planning & Development LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Latenite Magic, Inc., et al., Defendants, Conseco Variable Life Insurance Company et al., Intervenors–Defendants–Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 15, 2006, after a nonjury trial, in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, in favor of plaintiff-respondent and against intervenors-defendants-appellants and defendant-appellant surety company, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate so much thereof as holds intervenors directly liable to plaintiff-respondent, the judgment is deemed paid in full, and otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of intervenors payable by plaintiff-respondent.
There is no evidence of exaggeration, much less that any exaggeration was willful, warranting a declaration under Lien Law § 39 that plaintiff's mechanic's lien is void (cf. Strongback Corp. v. N.E.D. Cambridge Ave. Dev. Corp., 25 A.D.3d 392, 808 N.Y.S.2d 654 [2006] ). We modify only insofar as the judgment holds intervenors directly liable to plaintiff in quasi-contract. We reject the trial court's finding that intervenors formally admitted that they benefitted from plaintiff's work, and, even if we were to assume, although hardly clear, that intervenors did so benefit, it remains that plaintiff's services were rendered not at intervenors' behest but at the behest of their assignor. Thus, plaintiff cannot recover against intervenors in quantum meruit (see Kagan v. K–Tel Entertainment, 172 A.D.2d 375, 377, 568 N.Y.S.2d 756 [1991], quoting Langel v. Betz, 250 N.Y. 159, 161–162, 164 N.E. 890 [1928]; Prestige Caterers v. Kaufman, 290 A.D.2d 295, 295–296, 736 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2002] ). We have considered appellants' other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 604704 /99, 114077 /99, 2581
Decided: January 22, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)