Opinion
2002-01096
Argued February 21, 2003.
March 17, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law article 2, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated December 14, 2001, which discharged the appellant's public improvement lien.
King King, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Peter M. Kutil of counsel), and Inayat I. Shaikh, New York, N.Y., for appellant (one brief filed).
Simon, Meyrowitz Meyrowitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edward S. Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The evidence at the hearing, including certified payrolls, W-2 forms, and cancelled checks, supported the conclusion that the appellant lienholder was an employee, rather than a subcontractor, on the subject public improvement construction project (see Lien Law § 5; Cameron Equip. Corp. v. People of the State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 299, affd 27 N.Y.2d 634; Dorn v. Johnson Corp., 16 A.D.2d 1009, 1010; Hampton v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 244 App. Div. 815, affd 270 N.Y. 599; Morse, Inc. v. Rentar Ind. Development Corp., 85 Misc.2d 304, 308-309, affd 56 A.D.2d 30, affd 43 N.Y.2d 952). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the petition to discharge the appellant's public improvement lien, as the appellant was not a proper lienor under the relevant statute (see Lien Law § 21).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.