Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In Blair v. Ferris, 150 AD3d 1365 (3d Dept 2017), a contractor filed a $160,633 mechanic’s lien following a dispute over residential construction and extra work. After trial, the court awarded $57,600. The appellate court sent the damages calculation back for further proceedings because it could not reconcile the award with the payments and credits shown by the record.
The appellate court did not fix the ultimate recovery at a new amount. It also upheld the rejection of the owners’ willful-exaggeration claim. The discrepancy between the lien and the proven recovery, and a computational error, did not establish deliberate inflation. The contractor explained why successive invoices used different billing methods, and the record lacked proof of intentional exaggeration.
The distinction matters
Lien Law § 39 can invalidate a willfully exaggerated lien. Section 39-a provides specified damages when its enforcement-proceeding requirements are met. An unsuccessful charge or honest calculation error does not, by itself, prove willfulness.
The decision is not permission to file an unsupported amount. Reconcile the contract, changes, payments, credits and retainage before filing. Keep contemporaneous records even when testimony may be admissible: their absence can make both the debt and intent harder to establish. Owners challenging a lien should distinguish proof that the amount is wrong from evidence that it was deliberately inflated.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with mechanic’s lien enforcement and defense. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment