The court properly refused to consider respondent's itemized statement demanded by petitioner pursuant to Lien Law § 38, and correctly dismissed the petition on the ground that the subject mechanic's lien is facially valid. In the absence of a defect on the face of the notice of lien, the disputes concerning whether the insurance allegedly procured by respondent is a lienable item, and whether other items constituting the lien have been paid, must await trial of the...
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.
