Legal Opinion
John Roshirt, Inc. v. Rosenstock
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 1, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcNamee, J.
The defendant owner urges that the notice of lien of the Arco Company is void because the amount claimed therein, viz., $668.81, is substantially in excess of the amount proved on the trial, viz., $435.90. There was no evidence in the case to indicate that the enlargement of the amount due was willful or fraudulent. And in view of the provisions of section 23 of the Lien Law (as amd. by Laws of 1929, chap. 515) calling for a liberal construction of the provisions relating to mechanics’ liens, the frequent and honest differences in opinion as to the amount due for labor and materials in this…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Toop v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Mahley v. . German BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Ringle v. . Wallis Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hurley v. TuckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Fanning v. TerreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Clemente Construction Corp. v. P. T. Cox Contracting Co.New York Supreme Court · 1939
- Hudson Demolition Co. v. Ismor Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- J.C. Construction Management Corp. v. Robert Hunt Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Clemens v. Zappala & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1951
- In re New Jersey Window Sales, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.