| M3GH Props. LLC v Debut Concrete & Gen. Constr., Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 52473(U) [18 Misc 3d 1108(A)] |
| Decided on December 17, 2007 |
| Supreme Court, Suffolk County |
| Sgroi, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
M3GH Properties LLC,
Petitioner,
against Debut Concrete & General Construction, Inc., Respondent. |
ORDERED that the motion of the Petitioner for an order cancelling the lien
filed by Debut Concrete & General Construction, Inc. in the office of the Clerk of Suffolk
County on January 4, 2007 against the property of the Petitioner M3GH Properties LLC, said
property being located at 200 Wireless Boulevard, Hauppauge, New York, and further described
as District: 0800; Section: 18100; Block: 0100; Lot: 001054; Book: 12182; Page: 390, is granted;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Suffolk County Clerk is directed to
immediately vacate and cancel the Mechanics Lien described above upon the payment of all
required fees by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner, M3GH Properties, Inc., is the owner of the real property which is the
subject of a mechanic's lien filed by the Respondent, Debut Concrete & General Construction,
Inc. in the sum of $96,048.00. On March 30, 2007, at the request of the Petitioner, the attorneys
for M3GH caused to be served a notice pursuant to Lien Law § 59 by
personal delivery of the notice to Lorraine Wilson, a person authorized to receive service on
behalf of the Respondent. There is no allegation that the notice was improperly served or that the
notice fails to comply with the requirements of the Lien Law.
Under the provisions of Lien Law § 59, the notice served
required that the lienor commence an action to enforce its lien on or before April 30, 2007. When
the Respondent failed to commence an action, the Petitioner properly commenced a proceeding
by order to show cause to vacate and cancel the lien.
The failure of Debut Concrete & General Construction, Inc. to commence an action
on or before April 30, 2007, requires this Respondent to demonstrate the reasons the mechanic's
lien should not be vacated for failure to comply with Lien Law § 59 (see,
Marple v. Sorg, 230 AD2d 858, 646 NYS2d 543). If the action to foreclose the
lien was not timely commenced by the lienor after service of a notice pursuant to Lien
Law § 59, it is within the discretion of the Court to cancel the lien upon
commencement of a proceeding to vacate the lien upon the real property.
The Respondent, in its response to the order to show cause, has not demonstrated
that facts exist which would, as a matter of equity, warrant the denial of Petitioner's request for
vacatur of the lien (see, Kushaqua Estates Inc. v. Bonded Concrete Inc., 215
AD2d 993, 627 NYS2d 140; S A F La Sala Corp. v. S & H 88th St. Assocs.
138 AD2d 241, 242, 525 NYS2d 206; see also, 16 Carmody Wait 2d §
97:144). While the Court will attempt to avoid prejudicing the rights of the lienor by a
technical or strict interpretation of Lien Law § 59 (see, In re
Cohen, 209 A.D. 415, 205 N.Y.S. 91), here the Respondent has not offered any excuse
for its six month delay in commencing the action to foreclose the lien. The lienor has not denied
that it was properly served by the Petitioner with a [*2]notice to
commence an action in March of 2007. Further, the action to foreclose was not commenced until
this motion to vacate the lien was served in October of 2007. While the Respondent will lose the
lien on the property if the Court grants the motion to vacate the lien, the contract action may still
be pursued and the Respondent is not without legal remedy for the monies allegedly owed to it
(see, Miller v. T.A. & J.M. General Contractors, Inc., 124 Misc 2d 273, 476
NYS2d 449).
Under these circumstances, where the Respondent was properly served with the
notice to commence the action, an action was not commenced for six months and then only when
the Petitioner moved for dismissal, and there has been no attempt to show either a reason for the
failure to commence an action to foreclose in a timely manner or the merit to the Respondent's
underlying claim, the Court will exercise its discretion and grant the motion of the Petitioner to
vacate and cancel the lien (see, Apollo Const. & Development, Inc. v. Mazza,
13 Misc 3d 1, 822 NYS2d 357; In re Cancellation of a Mechanic's Lien on Real Property
at 81 Brookline Avenue, Albany, New York 12203, 3 Misc 3d 1105(A), 787 NYS2d
676, 2004 NY Slip Op. 50426(U), N.Y.Sup. May 14, 2004).
Dated:________________________SANDRA L. SGROI, J. S. C.