Opinion
2013-10-1
In re TAOCON, INC., Petitioner–Appellant, v. URBAN D.C. INC., Lienor–Respondent.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Joshua D. Bernstein of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Matthew T. Worner, White Plains (Matthew T. Worner of counsel), for respondent.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Joshua D. Bernstein of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Matthew T. Worner, White Plains (Matthew T. Worner of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered November 13, 2012, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) for an order summarily discharging a mechanic's lien, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly denied the petition for summary discharge of the lien on the ground that it was untimely filed, because the notice of lien sets forth dates indicating that the lien was filed within the applicable limitations period ( see Matter of Lowe, 4 A.D.3d 476, 772 N.Y.S.2d 359 [2d Dept. 2004];Lien Law § 10[1] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the lien is not rendered facially defective by the lienor's itemized statement of work performed showing the last item of work as repair work; this evidence raises a factual issue as to the relationship of the last item of work to the parties' contract ( see 72 Pyrgi v. Gkam Corp., 293 A.D.2d 387, 740 N.Y.S.2d 614 [1st Dept. 2002] ).