Matrix Staten Island Dev., LLC v. BKS-NY, LLC

204 A.D.3d 1004

167 N.Y.S.3d 530

In the Matter of MATRIX STATEN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., petitioners-respondents,

v.BKS–NY, LLC, appellant, et al., respondent.

2018–04840

Index No. 85029/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—December 3, 2021

April 27, 2022

Trenk, DiPasquale, Della Fera & Sodono, P.C., New York, NY (Margreta M. Morgulas and Paul Hollander of counsel), for appellant.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York, NY (Marsha J. Indych and Kenneth J. Wilbur, pro hac vice, of counsel), for petitioners-respondents.

BETSY BARROS, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) to summarily discharge certain mechanic's liens, BKS–NY, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated March 15, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the petition which were, in effect, (1) to summarily discharge a mechanic's lien dated January 2, 2018, and filed by BKS–NY, LLC, insofar as asserted against the petitioners, (2) to direct the Richmond County Clerk's Office to vacate and discharge the subject lien insofar as asserted against the petitioners, and (3) for a determination that the amount claimed in the subject mechanic's lien was willfully exaggerated, and thereupon, for a hearing to determine the amount of damages sustained by the petitioners, inter alia, pursuant to Lien Law § 39–a.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the petition which were, in effect, (1) to summarily discharge the subject mechanic's lien insofar as asserted against the petitioners, (2) to direct the Richmond County Clerk's Office to vacate and discharge the subject lien insofar as asserted against the petitioners, and (3) for a determination that the amount claimed in the subject mechanic's lien was willfully exaggerated, and thereupon, for a hearing to determine the amount of damages sustained by the petitioners, inter alia, pursuant to Lien Law § 39–a, are denied.

BKS–NY, LLC (hereinafter BKS), filed a mechanic's lien dated January 2, 2018 (hereinafter the composite mechanic's lien). The composite mechanic's lien identified the real property subject to the lien, the alleged owners of the real property subject to the lien, and the amounts allegedly due for certain unreimbursed material and labor.

The petitioners, Matrix Staten Island Development, LLC, and Matrix Construction Services, LLC, commenced this special proceeding against BKS and another respondent. The petition sought, inter alia, in effect, to summarily discharge the composite mechanic's lien insofar as asserted against the petitioners, (2) to direct the Richmond County Clerk's Office to vacate and discharge the subject lien insofar as asserted against the petitioners, and (3) for a determination that the amount claimed in the composite mechanic's lien was willfully exaggerated, and, thereupon, for a hearing to determine the amount of damages sustained by the petitioners, inter alia, pursuant to Lien Law § 39–a. In the order appealed from, dated March 15, 2018, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the petition. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

" Lien Law § 19(6) provides, with respect to a mechanic's lien for a private improvement, that a court may summarily discharge of record the alleged lien when ‘the notice of lien is invalid by reason of failure to comply with the provisions of’ Lien Law § 9" ( Matter of Malbro Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Straightedge Bldrs., Inc., 188 A.D.3d 1068, 1068, 132 N.Y.S.3d 649, quoting Lien Law § 19[6] ; see Rivera v. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y., 29 N.Y.3d 45, 51, 52 N.Y.S.3d 270, 74 N.E.3d 653 ). "Thus, to be summarily discharged, the notice of lien must be invalid on its face" ( Matter of Old Post Rd. Assoc., LLC v. LRC Constr., LLC, 177 A.D.3d 658, 659, 112 N.Y.S.3d 254 ). "When there is no defect on the face of the notice of lien, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await the lien foreclosure trial" ( id. at 659, 112 N.Y.S.3d 254 ). "In determining the validity of a notice of lien, the requirements of the Lien Law are ‘to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof’ " ( Matter of Malbro Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Straightedge Bldrs., Inc., 188 A.D.3d at 1068, 132 N.Y.S.3d 649, quoting Lien Law § 23 ). " ‘A substantial compliance with its several provisions shall be sufficient for the validity of a lien and to give jurisdiction to the courts to enforce the same’ " ( Matter of Malbro Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Straightedge Bldrs., Inc., 188 A.D.3d at 1068, 132 N.Y.S.3d 649, quoting Lien Law § 23 ).

Here, the composite mechanic's lien was facially valid and the Supreme Court should not have summarily discharged it. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the composite mechanic's lien was not invalid because of a failure to apportion the work and material furnished between the four parcels of real property that were identified in the composite mechanic's lien. The requirement to do so "applies where several transactions, involving the improvement of distinct parcels of property, have been effected at the request of independent owners" ( Matter of Niagara Venture v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 175, 181–182, 565 N.Y.S.2d 449, 566 N.E.2d 648 ). Here, the petitioners failed to establish that the individual and independent lot owners identified in the composite mechanic's lien hired BKS in separate and distinct transactions. Furthermore, the composite mechanic's lien was not invalid on its face merely because it identified multiple lots by their respective tax block and lot designations (see East Coast Mines & Materials Corp. v. Golf Course Props. Co., 228 A.D.2d 545, 546, 644 N.Y.S.2d 326 ). Unlike the lien at issue in ( Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp., 62 A.D.2d 980, 403 N.Y.S.2d 327 ), the composite mechanic's lien in this case identified the proper block and lot designations for each of the four lots (see Fremar Bldg. Corp. v. Sand, 104 A.D.2d 1025, 1026, 480 N.Y.S.2d 945 ; cf. Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp., 62 A.D.2d at 980, 403 N.Y.S.2d 327 ). Under the circumstances, the court erred in granting those branches of the petition which were, in effect, (1) to summarily discharge the composite...