Hudson Demolition Co., Inc. v. Ismor Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1978 |
| Parties | HUDSON DEMOLITION CO., INC., Appellant, v. ISMOR REALTY CORP., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harvey S. Barr, Spring Valley, for appellant.
Dreyer & Traub, New York City (Samuel Kirschenbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GULOTTA, J. P., and SHAPIRO, COHALAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, plaintiff appeals from so much of a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 7, 1977, as, after a nonjury trial, denied foreclosure of the lien.
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In our view plaintiff-appellant's notice of lien failed to comply with the requirements of subdivision 7 of section 9 of the Lien Law. The block and lot description placed within the notice of lien described an adjacent property. The fact that the face sheet of the notice of lien contained the proper address of the property on which plaintiff sought to place its lien does not make the lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with the statute.
The face sheet was not an integral part of the notice of lien, and thus a party examining the pertinent part of the notice would not be able to identify the premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty, to the exclusion of all others (cf. Hurley v. Tucker, 128 App.Div. 580, 112 N.Y.S. 980; Roshirt, Inc. v. Rosenstock, 138 Misc. 515, 247 N.Y.S. 420).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walter Boss, Inc. v. Cleary
...notice of lien which indicates the wrong property, however, has been found to be prejudicial (Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp., 62 A.D.2d 980, 980, 403 N.Y.S.2d 327, 328 [2nd Dept. 1978]). The reason for this is that "...a party examining the pertinent part of the notice would no......
-
Contelmo's Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. J & J Milano, Inc.
...an identification of the premises with reasonable certainty to the exclusion of all other premises. (See Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp., 62 A.D.2d 980, 403 N.Y.S.2d 327; Sprickerhoff v. Gordon, 120 App.Div. 748, 105 N.Y.S. 586.) The notice of lien herein described the property ......
-
Matrix Staten Island Dev., LLC v. BKS-NY, LLC
...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......
-
Fremar Bldg. Corp. v. Sand
...or purchaser in good faith, as the case may be". Clearly, no such prejudice has been demonstrated herein. Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp., 62 A.D.2d 980, 403 N.Y.S.2d 327, is not to the contrary, as the court therein was merely asked to determine the legal sufficiency of an unam......