Reviewed September 7, 2026.
Disagreeing with the amount of a mechanic’s lien does not, by itself, establish a facial defect permitting summary discharge under Lien Law § 19(6). The procedure is limited to the statutory grounds; it does not resolve every disagreement over payment, completion or performance.
Separate the issues
A notice may fail a required element, contain a disputed factual statement, include an overstated balance or be intentionally exaggerated. Those are not interchangeable conclusions. Gather contracts, payments, credits, work records and the filed notice before choosing a remedy.
In Broadway PT 1710 LLC v. Kingdom Associates, Inc. (1st Dept 2026), the court rejected a § 19(6) challenge based on issues beyond the notice’s face. It also explained that a § 38 itemization demand did not justify discharge without the required prior compliance order.
Exaggeration and accelerated enforcement
Willful exaggeration under §§ 39 and 39-a requires proof of intent, not merely a lower amount ultimately awarded. Contrary to an earlier version of this article, it need not always await a trial: Northe Group, Inc. v. Spread NYC, LLC (2011) permits summary disposition on conclusive evidence.
A § 59 demand is a separate statutory process with proper service, a deadline at least 30 days later and a court application if necessary. It is not a substitute for answering an existing foreclosure action or an automatic cancellation notice.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with Section 59 demands and lien disputes. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment