Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In Scarano Architect, PLLC v. 6322 Holding Corp., 35 Misc 3d 1228(A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2012), the owner and architect disputed whether a later payment agreement replaced the original debt or was an unfulfilled accord. That dispute affected the amount the architect claimed remained due and whether its liens were intentionally overstated.
The court denied the owner’s motion. The ruling did not award the architect the lien amount or finally determine the exaggeration counterclaim.
Correcting the earlier headline
The earlier headline said exaggeration always requires trial. That is too broad. Appellate decisions permit summary disposition where the evidence is conclusive. See Northe Group, Inc. v. Spread NYC, LLC (2011) and On the Level Enterprises, Inc. v. 49 East Houston LLC (2013). Credibility disputes ordinarily require factfinding.
When negotiating a reduced payoff, specify whether the original debt is discharged immediately or only after agreed payment, and document the effect of default. Before filing a lien, apply that agreement, payments and credits to the calculation. Settlement terms can materially affect both the balance and the evidence of the lienor’s intent.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with lien foreclosure and exaggeration defense. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment