Seid v. Hanco Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHenry A. Hudson, J.
On April 10,1961, before Justice John H. Farnham, a motion was made in the above-entitled action by the owner to compel the lienor to provide the itemized state*317ment authorized by section 38 of the Lien Law. Justice Farnham granted the motion and directed that such statement be delivered by the lienor to the owner within the customary time limit. The lienor has furnished a statement pursuant to such direction and the instant motion is made for the purpose of compelling the lienor to make such itemized statement more definite and specific.
Upon the argument of the motion, the court examined the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re SperryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Callipari v. 516 East 11th Street Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1937
3Cited by1 opinion
- 819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v. T. & A. Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965