From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pellic Dev. v. Whitestone Eq. Farmingdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 27, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Lien Law § 70 (5), an owner of real property becomes a trustee of funds for the benefit, inter alia, of laborers and material suppliers, only as to funds specifically designated (see, Kingston Trust Co. v Catskill Land Corp., 43 A.D.2d 995). In the instant case, the $1,100,000 that the appellant contends was a trust asset was actually a capital contribution of the owner. Therefore, these funds were not trust assets (see, Bristol, Litynski, Wojcik v Elliott, 107 Misc.2d 1005; G B Lab. Installation v Beekman Downtown Hosp., 66 Misc.2d 441; 237 Constr. Corp. v St. Stanislaus R.C. Church, 30 Misc.2d 567).

The appellant's contentions that Tesi Associates, Inc., as contractor, is obligated to provide a verified statement of accounts pursuant to Lien Law § 70 (6) was not raised before the Supreme Court and thus is not properly before this Court for appellate review (see, Kohilakis v Town of Smithtown, 167 A.D.2d 513). In any event, we note that no demand for a verified statement of accounts was ever served upon Tesi Associates, Inc., and that that entity is not even a party to the instant action. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pellic Dev. v. Whitestone Eq. Farmingdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Pellic Dev. v. Whitestone Eq. Farmingdale

Case Details

Full title:PELLIC DEVELOPMENT CORP., Appellant, v. WHITESTONE EQUITIES FARMINGDALE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 27, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 32

Citing Cases

Trystate Mech., Inc. v. TEFCO, LLC

However, in order for there to be a diversion of trust funds, there must have been an existing trust fund as…

Trystate Mech., Inc. v. Tefco, LLC

" A trust beneficiary is authorized to bring a representative action under Lien Law § 77 "to recover trust…