Summary
In City of New York v New York Iron Works (292 AD2d 176 [1st Dept 2002]), the First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to discharge a mechanic's lien.
Summary of this case from General Contr. Interior Bldg. Serv., Inc. v. Broadway 1384 LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 31498(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/26/2009)Opinion
412N
March 5, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered July 2, 2001, which denied claimant Grant Avenue, LLC's motion to discharge a mechanic's lien held by respondent Cameo Electrical Company in the amount of $44,108, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Sanford F. Young for claimant-appellant.
Anthony G. Bianchi for respondents-respondents.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Wallach, Buckley, JJ.
Contrary to claimant Grant Avenue's contention, Cameo Electrical Company's mechanic's lien was properly filed under Lien Law § 3, since the lease between Grant Avenue and its tenant required the tenant to effect the installations performed by the lien holder, Cameo, and the installations became part of the demised premises and ultimately inured to the Grant Avenue's benefit (see, Mock, Inc. v. 118 E. 25th St. Realty, 87 A.D.2d 756, citing Rice v. Culver, 172 N.Y. 60, 65-66). That Grant Avenue was not in contractual privity with Cameo respecting the work for which payment is sought under the subject lien, does not, under the above described circumstances vitiate the lien (see, Rainbow Elec. v. Bloom, 132 A.D.2d 539). This is particularly so since Grant Avenue dealt directly with Cameo in connection with the work performed by Cameo upon its premises.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.