Summary
In Inter Metal Fabricators, Inc. v HRH Constr. LLC, 94 AD3d 529 (1st Dept 2012) and Northe Group, Inc. v Spread NYC LLC, 88 AD3d 557 (1st Dept 2011), the submitted documentary evidence conclusively demonstrated that the liens in those cases were willfully exaggerated.
Summary of this case from Maverick Constr. Servs. LLC v. DembitzerOpinion
2012-04-12
INTER METAL FABRICATORS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HRH CONSTRUCTION LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.[And Other Actions].
Goldberg & Connolly, Rockville Centre (Mitchell B. Reiter of counsel), for appellant. Wasserman Grubin & Rogers LLP, New York (Samuel A. Gunsburg of counsel), for HRH Construction LLC, Vesta 24, LLC and BBL Partners, LLC, respondents.
Goldberg & Connolly, Rockville Centre (Mitchell B. Reiter of counsel), for appellant. Wasserman Grubin & Rogers LLP, New York (Samuel A. Gunsburg of counsel), for HRH Construction LLC, Vesta 24, LLC and BBL Partners, LLC, respondents.
Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP, New York (Eric M. Eusanio of counsel), for Vigilant Insurance Company, respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 10, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants HRH Construction LLC's and Vigilant Insurance Company's motions for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action for foreclosure of mechanic's liens and HRH's motion for summary judgment as to liability on its counterclaim for willful exaggeration of the liens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
*335 Defendants demonstrated conclusively that the amount of the lien was willfully exaggerated ( see Lien Law § 39; Northe Group, Inc. v. Spread NYC, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 557, 931 N.Y.S.2d 231 [2011]; Strongback Corp. v. N.E.D. Cambridge Ave. Dev. Corp., 25 A.D.3d 392, 393, 808 N.Y.S.2d 654 [2006] ). The evidence includes documents, created by plaintiff and submitted to its surety, that tend to show that plaintiff knowingly marked up its costs and expenses, as well as the testimony of plaintiff's vice president and chief operating officer admitting to the overcharges and stating that he was “entitled to mark it up to whatever number I want,” and, “You know what? People do a lot of things.”
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.