Pilot Contracting Inc. v. Frost Contractors Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | INDEX NO. 507951/2019 |
| Citation | 2019 NY Slip Op 33413 (U) |
| Parties | PILOT CONTRACTING INC., Individually and on behalf all of Beneficiaries of the Trusts hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff, v. FROST CONTRACTORS CORP., 145 HUNT LLC, People of the State of New York, and John Doe #1 through 24, inclusive, the last 24 named Defendants being unknown and named fictitiously, the parties being all persons having or claiming an interest in or Lien upon the premises hereinafter described, Defendants |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The defendant has moved seeking to discharge and cancel a Mechanic's Lien filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff opposes the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After hearing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination.
The defendant 145 Hunt LLC is the owner of property, a vacant lot located at 145 Huntington Street in Kings County. 145 Hunt entered into a contract with defendant Frost Contractors Corp., to construct a three story building on the lot. Frost entered into a contract with subcontractor Pilot Contracting Inc., the plaintiff in this action. The plaintiff claims it is owed additional sums in the amount of $125,000 and has placed a Mechanic's Lien on the property. The defendant owner now moves for summary judgement seeking to vacate and dismiss the lien on the grounds the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate it is owed any fees.
On December 4, 2018 Pilot claimed it had completed the work and sought full payment. Thus, Pilot essentially walked off the job after claiming there was nothing more to do. This prompted Frost to fire Pilot since according to Frost there was significant work that remained outstanding. Indeed, Pilot does not argue the cement work, steel work, elevation work and water proofing and insulations, roof and roofing details and parapet details, safety code and Department of Building requirements and Plan Specification requirements as detailed in a letter submitted within Exhibit J of the motion to cancel the Mechanic's Lien was ever really completed. The plaintiff presents two arguments why the lien cannot be summarily cancelled. First, plaintiff argues any summary dismissal of the lien does not satisfy the requirements of Lien Law §19. Second, plaintiff argues the disposition of the lien must await a trial and cannot be summarily dismissed.
The defendant counters the requirements of Lien Law §19 do not yet begin where the lien is improperly filed or exaggerated.
However, whether the lien amount is exaggerated is generally a question of fact (Executive Towers at Lido LLC v. Metro Construction Services, 303 AD2d 545, 756 NYS2d 461 [2d Dept.,2003]). As the court stated in Aaron v. Great Bay Contracting Inc., 290 AD2d 326, 736 NYS2d 359 [1st Dept., 2002] "the validity of the lien plainly turns on a dispute as to whether respon...
To continue reading
Request your trial