Ad Renovation Sol. v. Pielet
| Decision Date | 29 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 151227/2022 |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 34025 (U) |
| Parties | AD RENOVATION SOLUTION INC. Plaintiff, v. NEELY PIELET, ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. NEELY PIELET Plaintiff, v. DANIEL LUZON, NY RENOVATIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 were read on this motion to/for DISCHARGE/CANCEL MECHANICS LIEN . Defendant Pielet's motion to discharge the mechanics lien is denied.
This action arises out of unpaid invoices for construction work performed on defendant Pielet's property. It appears that third-party defendant Daniel Luzon has at least two corporations, plaintiff AD Renovation Solution, Inc. ("AD") and third-party defendant NY Renovations Solutions, Inc. ("NY").
Although AD is the plaintiff, Pielet alleges that she entered into a contract for the construction work with third-party defendants Daniel Luzon and NY; as proof, she submits a contract she signed with him as "Contractors" on third party defendant NY's letterhead (NYSCEF Doc. No 13). She also submits multiple invoices from NY to her.
AD brought suit for breach of contract demanding defendant Pielet pay an outstanding sum of $278,625.00, for which AD filed a mechanics lien. Defendant Pielet answered and filed third-party claims against third-party defendants Mr. Luzon and NY Renovations Solutions, Inc. According to Pielet, the work performed on her property was unprofessional, less than satisfactory and shoddy. Pielet also maintains that she contracted with NY and Mr. Luzon, not AD. He also claims that the outstanding lien amount is for exaggerated work that defendant Pielet never requested be completed on her property.
Pielet brings this order to show cause seeking to vacate the mechanic's lien filed by AD pursuant to Lien Law §§ 19(6) and 39. Pielet alleges that AD does not have standing to foreclose on its mechanic's lien and NY the general contractor with whom Pielet contracted, is not a licensed home improvement contractor. As stated above, to support her contention that she contracted with NY and not AD, Pielet provides a contract on NY letterhead and multiple invoices sent by NY to Pielet. Pielet also contends that AD is a subcontractor of NY, and because NY is not licensed, AD does not have standing to enforce the lien even if AD is licensed. Pielet also claims that the lien amount is for extra charges for work she never agreed to have performed. Finally, Pielet contends that property owners are not liable to subcontractors without express consent, and because AD and defendant Pielet are not contracting parties, AD cannot recover under a quasi-contract theory.
In response, Mr. Luzon contends that defendant Pielet contracted with AD, received numerous invoices from AD, and posted a bond for the lien filed by AD. In support of his response, Mr. Luzon provides a contract signed by himself and Pielet with AD at the letterhead. Mr. Luzon also provides invoices, proof of license, and a certificate of insurance. Mr. Luzon contends that AD is licensed, is the party to the contract, and the fact his office may have used a letterhead for NY should have no bearing on the merits of this case.
Because the order to show cause did not provide for reply papers, the Court will not consider the reply and sur-reply.
Pursuant to NY Lien Law § 39, "[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien upon a private or public improvement or in which the validity of the lien is an issue if the court shall find that a lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount for which he claims a lien as stated in his notice of lien, his lien shall be declared to be void and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial