Summary
affirming finding of willful exaggeration on summary judgment where the "Plaintiff included in its lien amount items that [were] not for labor or materials ... and plaintiff has failed to even attempt to explain the discrepancies"
Summary of this case from Baring Indus., Inc. v. 3 BP Prop. Owner LLCOpinion
2015-03-3
LMF–RS CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEVZET KALJIC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Andrew B. Schultz, Great Neck, for appellant. Wenig Saltiel LLP, Brooklyn (Richard A. Rosenzweig of counsel), for Nevzet and Christina Kaljic, respondents.
Andrew B. Schultz, Great Neck, for appellant. Wenig Saltiel LLP, Brooklyn (Richard A. Rosenzweig of counsel), for Nevzet and Christina Kaljic, respondents.
Robert M. Olshever, P.C., New York (Robert M. Olshever of counsel), for 5 LLC, respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Nevzet Kaljic and Christina Kaljic's motion for summary judgment vacating the mechanic's lien, and denied plaintiff's motion to amend the mechanic's lien, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Summary disposition is warranted, because the evidence that the amount of the lien was wilfully exaggerated is conclusive (Strongback Corp. v. N.E.D. Cambridge Ave. Dev. Corp., 25 A.D.3d 392, 808 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1st Dept.2006] ). Plaintiff included in its lien amount items that are not for labor or materials, as its own itemization makes plain, and plaintiff has failed to even attempt to explain the discrepancies. ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ., concur.