Legal Opinion

Kempa v. Moell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 6, 1954PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

In this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien the Referee found that “the trial, to put it mildly, was very confusing”. We also have found a very unsatisfactory and confused record. We may assume that the notice of lien was before the Referee but it was not made a part of the complaint, nor was it an exhibit. Apparently, the appellants’ point that the notice of lien did not comply with section 9 of the Lien Law was not raised at the time of the trial. If it was found that the lien was not willfully exaggerated, we agree with the Referee. The notice of lien was inartistically drawn. The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fraenkel v. . FriedmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Dennison Construction Co. v. . ManneschmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1912

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fink v. FriedmanNew York Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Soundwall Construction Corp. v. Moncarol Construction Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API