There is no evidence that petitioners and respondent have any business or contractual relationship with respect to the property involved so as to render petitioners subject to the mechanic's lien filed by respondent. Furthermore, respondent is not a materialman as that term is defined in Lien Law § 2 (12). Due to this result, it is not necessary to decide whether respondent's cross motion to amend the mechanic's lien was properly denied.
Ordered that the order...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
