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.
IN RE: Northside Tower Realty, LLC, respondent, v. Klin Construction Group, Inc., appellant.
Submitted-April 27, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) to summarily discharge a mechanic's lien, Klin Construction Group, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated April 24, 2009, which granted the petition on the ground of payment, and directed summary discharge of the lien.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the notice of lien is reinstated.
A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6) (see Dember Constr. Corp. v. P & R Elec. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 540, 546; Matter of Supreme Plumbing Co., Inc. v Seadco Bldg. Corp., Inc., 224 AD 844). Lien Law § 19 provides the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic's lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement (see Coppola Gen. Contr. Corp. v Noble House Constr. of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 856, 857). The petition to discharge the appellant's mechanic's lien was based upon the assertion that the owner of the property fully paid the general contractor for excavation and foundation work before the lien was filed by the appellant subcontractor. However, insofar as the petitioner sought summary discharge pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6), the notice of lien was not invalid on its face and, thus, was not subject to summary discharge. Accordingly, since there was no defect upon the face of the notice of lien, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure, and the Supreme Court erred in directing summary discharge of the lien (see Matter of Lowe, 4 AD3d 476; Dember Constr. Corp. v. P & R Elec. Corp., 76 A.D.2d at 546; see also Aaron v. Great Bay Contr., 290 A.D.2d 326; Mario's Home Ctr. v. Welch, 275 A.D.2d 839, 840; Coppola Gen. Contr. Corp., v Noble House Constr. of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 856; Pontos Renovation v. Kitano Arms Corp., 204 A.D.2d 87).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and BELEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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: 2009-05158 (Index No. 32978 /08)
Decided: May 18, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)