From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Flintlock Realty Constr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1992
188 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 14, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner's application to discharge and cancel its undertaking. Lien Law § 17 provides, inter alia, that a private improvement lien is effective only for one year from the date of filing unless, within such one-year period, the lienor commences an action to foreclose the lien or secures an extension of the lien (see, 3 Warren's Weed, New York Real Property, Mechanics' Lien, § 10.01 [4th ed]). While the statute, as amended in 1989, now allows a lienor to obtain an initial one-year extension by filing an extension in the County Clerk's office, under the law as it existed when the subject lien was filed in 1987, an extension could only be obtained by court order (see, Matter of Binghamton Masonic Temple v Armor El. Co., 186 A.D.2d 338). The requirements of Lien Law § 17 are applicable where, as here, a mechanic's lien has been "discharged by deposit or by order on the filing of an undertaking" (Lien Law § 17).

In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that the appellant filed a notice of mechanic's lien in the Westchester County Clerk's office on or about April 8, 1987, but took no steps to preserve its lien by seeking a court order extending the lien, or by commencing an action to foreclose upon the lien. Thus, the lien expired by operation of law on or about April 8, 1988, one year after it was filed (see, Matter of Assay Partners v Econowatt Corp., 176 A.D.2d 180; Matter of Fidelity Deposit Co. [Davis Refrig. Co. — Del. Suites, 75 A.D.2d 707; Spartan Concrete Corp. v Harbour Val. Homes, 71 A.D.2d 950). In light of the fact that the subject lien had expired, the Supreme Court properly cancelled the undertaking filed to secure the lien (see, Modular Steel Sys. v Avlis Contr. Corp., 89 A.D.2d 891).

We have examined the appellant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Flintlock Realty Constr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1992
188 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Flintlock Realty Constr. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FLINTLOCK REALTY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent. GRAWER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 14, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Vaccaro v. Ramirez

There is no need to obtain a court order to discharge the lien. Nevertheless, case law authorizes an…

Matter of Cook v. Pariso

case. In their initiating papers, petitioners properly relied on Lien Law §§ 17 and 19 (2), which seemingly…