Matter of Prospect Heights Rising v. Queensboro Electrical Contracting

Creditors' and Debtors' Rights

New York Law Journal


Justice Francois Rivera

Prospect Heights Rising sought to discharge a mechanic's lien filed against real property under Lien Law §19(6). The court noted §19(6) permitted a property owner to apply for an order summarily discharging a lien under certain statutorily specified circumstances. Yet, a motion to discharge a lien summarily under §19(6) must be denied where issues of fact existed. Prospect did not claim the lien was facially insufficient, but took issue with its timing, noting Feb. 11, 2011 was the date of the last work on the premises. Prospect offered documents indicating New York City Building Department ordered work to stop on Oct. 23, 2010. Prospect claimed the lien was filed contrary to the requirements of §10(1) as it was filed more than eight months after the last item of work was actually performed, thus should be discharged. The court ruled where a mechanic's lien was not invalid on its face, it was not subject to summary discharge under §19(6). Also, as the lien showed the last item of work was performed within the statutory eight month period, the lien was not facially invalid under §10, thus, the petition was denied.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202580352125

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.