Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In NDL Associates, Inc. v. Villanova Heights, Inc., 99 AD3d 450 (1st Dept 2012), the court reversed an order voiding a mechanic’s lien after a hearing that effectively became an early bench trial.
Discovery had not closed, and the lienor had not waived its jury right and consented to that procedure. The court said the exaggeration issue should be determined at trial or on a proper summary-judgment motion. It also found the defendants had not demonstrated willful exaggeration on the record presented.
Do not turn the decision into an absolute rule
The case does not bar all summary disposition. Conclusive evidence can support it, as illustrated by Northe Group, Inc. v. Spread NYC, LLC (2011). Nor should the decision’s discussion of malicious or fraudulent billing be treated as permission to knowingly inflate a lien unless a separate fraud lawsuit could also be proved.
Lien Law § 39 addresses willful exaggeration. A disputed or erroneous charge is not automatically intentional, but the claimant’s records, admissions and contractual limits can establish knowledge. Review both the evidence and the proper procedural route before seeking discharge or statutory damages.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with mechanic’s lien litigation. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment