East Hills Metro, Inc. v. J.M. Dennis Construction Corp.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Regional Building Systems, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland 2001)
- Park Place Carpentry & Builders, Inc. v. DiVito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Capogna v. Guella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Turbo Carpentry Corp. v. Brancadoro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Minelli Construction Co. v. Arben Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Executive Towers at Lido, LLC v. Metro Construction Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. appeals, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which denied the motion of the defendants, J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. and Hofstra University, for summary judgment discharging the lien as a willful exaggeration pursuant to Lien Law § 39, and on a counterclaim pursuant to Lien Law § 39-a.
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]), and on the ground that the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that so much of the appeal of the defendant J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. as purports to be taken from that portion of the order denying summary judgment to the defen
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly held that the appellant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff wilfully exaggerated the subject lien (see, Fidelity N. Y. v KensingtonJohnson Corp., 234 AD2d 263). The fact that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a plaintiff wilfully exaggerated a lien (see, Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 NY2d 191; Fidelity N. Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., supra; Balemian v LB Real Estate Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 223; Coppola Gen. Contr. Corp. v Noble House Constr., 224 AD2d 856; Howdy Jones Constr. Co. v Parklaw Realty, 76 AD2d 1018, affd 53 NY2d 718). This is particularly true in light of the requirement that Lien Law § 39-a must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed (see, Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, supra; Pyramid Champlain Co. v Brosseau & Co., 267 AD2d 539; Guzman v Estate of Fluker, 226 AD2d 676). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.