The following papers numbered 1 to 10 read on this motion by petitioner East Port Excavation & Utilities Contractors, Inc., for an order pursuant to Lien Law section 21-a discharging four (4) Public Improvement Liens filed by respondent lienor Arpielle Equipment Co., Inc., with the New York City School Construction Authority, on or about July 13, 2011.

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits...............................................................1-4 [*2]

Answering Affidavits - Exhibits............................................................................5-8

Reply Affidavits...................................................................................................9-10

On October 26, 2011, the petitioner East Port Excavation & Utilities Contractors, Inc., ("East Port") alleges that it filed and served a notice pursuant to Lien Law section 21-a, requiring the respondent lienor Arpielle Equipment Co., Inc. ("Arpielle") to commence an action to foreclose the four Public Improvement Liens it had filed with the New York City School Construction Authority by December 1, 2011, or in the alternative show cause why such liens should not be vacated, discharged and cancelled of record. On December 2, 2011, the petitioner brought this application to vacate, discharge and cancel the all four liens.

Lien Law section 21-a reads in pertinent part: "A lien against the amount due or to become due a contractor from the state or a public corporation, for the construction or demolition of a public improvement, may be vacated and cancelled by an order of the supreme court."

The respondent commenced actions to foreclose each of these liens on December 5, 2011. This is not a mandatory statute, and the lien does not automatically get cancelled by noncompliance with the notice. The Court must consider the equities, and the Court has the power to excuse the lienor for failing to commence the action in the time stated in the notice (see, e.g., Matter of Empress Apts. v LaGee Contr. Corp., 26 Misc 2d 852 [Sup Ct Kings County 1960]). Here, the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the delay of four days in the commencement of the foreclosure actions (see, e.g., Matter of Empress Apts., 26 Misc 2d at 859 [excusing delay of 9 days]; Matter of Rosen v 333 State Corp., 172 Misc 134 [Sup Ct Queens County 1939] [excusing delay of 29 days]). Therefore, the liens should not be cancelled.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision, opinion, and order of the Court.

_______________________________

J.S.C.

Dated: June 25, 2012