Case Law EK MT Kisco, LLC v. Arcon Constr. Grp., Inc.

EK MT Kisco, LLC v. Arcon Constr. Grp., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (4) Cited in (1) Related

Marco & Sitaras, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (George Sitaras and Maurizio Anglani of counsel), for appellant.

The Mavromihalis Law Firm, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Theodore Mavromihalis of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) to summarily discharge a mechanic's lien, Arcon Construction Group, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated December 15, 2014, which granted the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Lien Law § 11, if a notice of lien is served upon a corporation by registered or certified mail, such mailing must be addressed to the corporation at "its last known place of business." "Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the court does not have discretion to excuse noncompliance" (Matter of HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F & K Supply, 209 A.D.2d 412, 412, 618 N.Y.S.2d 422 ).

The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6), seeking to summarily discharge a mechanic's lien on the ground that Arcon Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant) failed to comply with the requirements of Lien Law § 11 in serving the lien upon one of the petitioners. The appellant's contention that the petitioners may not maintain a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) on this ground is without merit (see Matter of Connecticut St. Dev. Corp. v. Garber Bldg. Supplies, 216 A.D.2d 561, 628 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; Matter of HMB Acquisition Corp. v. F & K Supply, 209 A.D.2d 412, 618 N.Y.S.2d 422 ; see also 146 W. 45th St. Corp. v. McNally, 188 A.D.2d 410, 591 N.Y.S.2d 402 ; Matter of Hui's Realty v. Transcontinental Constr. Servs., 168 A.D.2d 302, 562 N.Y.S.2d 633 ). Further, the appellant failed to demonstrate that it complied with the requirements of Lien Law § 11, since its affidavit of service of the notice of the mechanic's lien did not demonstrate that the notice was sent to the last known place of business of the petitioner EK Mt Kisco, LLC (see e.g. Thompson Bros. Pile Corp. v. Rosenblum, 121 A.D.3d 672, 674, 993 N.Y.S.2d 353 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to discharge the lien.

DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

2 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2016
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy
"..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2016
Clarke v. Chun
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2016
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy
"..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2016
Clarke v. Chun
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex