Opinion
2013-09-26
Richard S. WEISMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jerzy MAKSYMOWICZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Jerzy Maksymowicz, appellant pro se. Weisman & Calderon LLP, Mount Vernon (Richard S. Weisman of counsel), for respondent.
Jerzy Maksymowicz, appellant pro se. Weisman & Calderon LLP, Mount Vernon (Richard S. Weisman of counsel), for respondent.
SWEENY, J.P., DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered April 6, 2012, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion for an order cancelling a mechanic's lien filed by defendant, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly found that defendant's purported itemized submissions in support of the lien were inadequate ( seeLien Law § 38). Items such as showering and having a barbecue with neighbors in the name of “community relations” do not constitute an “improvement” to the property within the meaning of the Lien Law ( see id. at § 2[4] ), nor were they related to any improvement. Similarly, the ordinary yard work that defendant may have performed does not constitute an improvement ( see Chase Lincoln First Bank v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 182 A.D.2d 906, 907, 581 N.Y.S.2d 694 [3d Dept. 1992] ). Defendant also failed to submit evidence of an agreement by plaintiff (the guardian of the incapacitated owner) or the owner for any of defendant's alleged services ( seeLien Law § 3).