Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In Construction for Commerce, Inc. v. 1325 48th Street, LLC, 90 AD3d 975 (2d Dept 2011), the court discussed Lien Law § 19(6), but the appeal’s immediate issue was service of the discharge proceeding.
The owner had obtained a default order discharging the lien. The lienor denied being served, and the trial court reinstated the lien without a service hearing. The appellate court reversed and directed a hearing because the competing service evidence required resolution. It did not finally determine the lien’s validity or hold that every requested discharge was unavailable.
The statutory grounds remain limited
Section 19(6) addresses specified defects in the notice and certain filing defects apparent from public records. A contested debt or workmanship issue generally cannot be resolved by treating it as a defect on the face of the notice.
Owners should identify a valid statutory ground and serve the proceeding correctly. Lienors should respond promptly to court papers and preserve evidence if service is disputed. Other methods of discharge, including satisfaction, a qualifying bond or an order under § 59, have their own requirements. The limits of § 19(6) do not eliminate those alternatives.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with mechanic’s lien defense and enforcement. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
I practice mechanic's lien law in Pennsylvania exclusively. Your blog is an important reminder about the general standard for early discharge of a lien. Although the defense client may be excited to get the matter resolved and discharged early, the process may take a little longer than he likes when there are questions of fact involved.
ReplyDelete