Case ID: ad3d_134/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hi-Tech Bridging, Inc., et al., Appellants, v 125th Street Equities, Inc., Respondent.
    [19 NYS3d 736]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered May 21, 2014, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a new notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek to foreclose on mechanic’s liens. The notice of pendency filed in this action, however, has expired, and plaintiffs did not seek to extend the notice before its expiration. An expired notice of pendency is a nullity and may not be revived (Matter of Sakow, 97 NY2d 436, 442 [2002]). Because the liens at issue terminated upon the expiration of the notice (see Lien Law § 17), the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint against defendant and correctly determined that plaintiffs’ cross motion is “devoid of merit” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.