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 here.
Watch and listen to Kushnick Pallaci Managing Partner Vincent Pallaci discuss Judicial License Agreements in NYC in today’s Construction Law Webinar. You can learn more