Recently the Second Department commented on what exactly is, and is not, a facial defect justifying summary discharge of a mechanic’s lien pursuant to LIen Law Section 19. Now the First Department has chimed in and they are consistent with the Second Department’s position (as well as the long standing position of every appellate Department in New York). The First Department found that the subject mechanic’s lien was filed less than two months after the date the lien said work was completed. Although the itemized statement of lien (presumably provided pursuant to Lien Law Section 38) did not show that date, the lienor’s principal submitted an affidavit averring that work was, in fact, performed on the date set forth in the filed lien. As such, the Court found that there was no power to summarily discharge the lien based on untimeliness. You can read the decision New York court guidance.
Related mechanic’s lien resources
These related resources provide additional guidance on New York mechanic’s liens, lien enforcement, lien itemization, and construction payment disputes.
Need guidance on a construction law issue?
Speak with Kushnick Pallaci about your next step.
Our New York construction attorneys represent contractors, owners, developers, design professionals, and property stakeholders in disputes, contracts, liens, claims, and risk management matters.
