Legal Opinion
In re Borysko
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1956PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdward G. Baker, J.
Motion for order directing lienor to file further itemized statement under section 38 of the Lien Law. It appears that the work was performed and the materials furnished pursuant to a contract which provided for a fixed price for the entire job. The work has been completed and the contractor has filed a lien for materials and labor furnished at the agreed price. This is permissible under sections 3 and 9 of the Lien Law pursuant to which a lien may be filed either for the value or the agreed price (Fyfe v. Sound Development Co., 235 N. Y. 266, 269).
It seems to this court that section 38 of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fyfe v. . Sound Development Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- 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 by3 opinions
- 819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v. T. & A. Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Solow v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- In re Lawrence Arms, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1962