Case ID: ad3d_149/html/0525-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of George Washington Bridge Bus Station Development Venture, LLC, Respondent, v Associated Specialty Contracting, Inc., Appellant.
    [52 NYS3d 321]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted the petition to discharge respondent’s mechanic’s lien on the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly granted the petition to discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by respondent. It is well-settled that a private mechanic’s lien may not attach to privately-leased, but publicly-owned, land (see Matter of Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club v Zarrelli, 57 NY2d 966, 968 [1982], revg on concurring in part, dissenting in part op of Hopkins, J., 83 AD2d 444, 452 [2d Dept 1981]; Avon Elec. Supplies v Voltaic Elec. Co., 203 AD2d 404, 405 [2d Dept 1994]; T.N.T. Coatings v County of Nassau, 114 AD2d 1027, 1028 [2d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 608 [1986]). Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), the owner of the subject property, is a “public corporation” within the contemplation of the Lien Law, the George Washington Bridge Bus Station constituted a “public improvement” within the meaning of the Lien Law, despite petitioner’s private leasehold interest in the property (Lien Law § 2 [8]; General Construction Law § 66 [1], [4]; see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]; Matter of Carland Constr. Co. v Infilco Degremont, 152 AD2d 694, 695 [2d Dept 1989]).

Respondent’s reliance on the exception to the general rule, provided by Lien Law § 2 (7), is misplaced, inasmuch as that section applies only to property owned by Industrial Development Agencies, which the Port Authority is not (see Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v Wyoming County Indus. Dev. Agency, 85 NY2d 281, 287 [1995]; Matter of PMNC v Brothers Insulation Co., 266 AD2d 293, 294 [2d Dept 1999]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.