Legal Opinion

In re 12 East Eighty-Sixth Street Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1933Published

1Opinion of the CourtHammer, J.

This application is by the owner of real property by order to show cause why “ an order should not be made'vacating and setting aside a certain mechanic’s hen * * * and why the said mechanic’s hen should not be discharged of record * * *.”

In an affidavit on behalf of the owner it is stated that “ the applicant’s contention is based upon Section 3 of the Lien Law ” in that “ this is not an application to discharge a hen lawfully filed in compliance with the Lien Law,” but to discharge the purported hen as absolutely void in that the labor and materials were not furnished to the owner…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brigham v. DuanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. Mechanic's Lien Filed by Supreme Plumbing Co. v. Seadco Building Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  3. Brigham v. DuanyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  4. In re BronitskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API