Rapaport v Broadway Kitchens & Baths

2024 NY Slip Op 30616(U)

February 27, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 651200/2020

Judge: Louis L. Nock

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 1 of 14

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 002) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 90, 91, and 93

were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 003) 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 92, 94, and 95

were read on this motion for A MECHANICS LIEN .

LOUIS L. NOCK, J.

Plaintiffs bring this action against defendant Broadway Kitchens & Baths (“Broadway 

Kitchens”) seeking damages in connection with a purchase agreement wherein plaintiffs 

purchased hired Broadway Kitchens to perform certain renovation work on their Manhattan 

apartment. The complaint contains causes of action against Broadway Kitchens and defendant 

Erko Lekovic (“Lekovic”) for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and 

fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of General Business Law §§ 349-350 (complaint, 

NYSCEF Doc. No. 61).1 Broadway Kitchens now moves for summary judgment, pursuant to 

CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaint asserted against it and in its favor on its counterclaim for a 

1 On April 7, 2021, default judgment as to liability was entered against Mr. Lekovic for his failure to appear in this 

action (NYSCEF Doc No. 20-21).

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. LOUIS L. NOCK PART 38M

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 651200/2020

 MOTION DATE

08/26/2022, 

09/16/2022

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 003

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

PENINA RAPAPORT and ELIYAHU KALATSKY,

 Plaintiffs, 

- v -

BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS and ERKO LEKOVIC,

 Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

1 of 14 [* 1]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 2 of 14

mechanic’s lien to foreclose on the apartment and to recover the unpaid monies owed (Mot. Seq. 

No. 002). Plaintiffs, pursuant to Lien Law § 39, move to cancel the mechanic’s lien due to 

Broadway Kitchens’ alleged willful exaggeration of the lien amount (Mot. Seq. No. 003).

Background

Broadway Kitchens is a general contractor who was under contract with plaintiffs, the 

owners of an apartment located at 100 West 89th Street, Apt 2C, New York, New York 10024 

(the “apartment”), to perform renovation work. On or about July 2, 2018, plaintiffs entered into 

a purchase agreement with Broadway Kitchens for the purchase of materials and services to 

renovate the apartment (contract, NYSCEF Doc. No. 41). According to the contract, plaintiffs 

agreed to pay Broadway Kitchens a total of $124,540 for the labor and materials required for the 

renovations to be paid in several installments (id. at BKB 000001). The work was scheduled to 

commence on August 1, 2018, with an estimated completion date of December 1, 2018 (id.). 

However, the contract was not signed until September 9, 2018 (id.). The scope of the work 

included demolition and reconstruction of the kitchen, master bathroom, and hall bathroom, 

removal of old floors and new floor installation, and patching and painting of all walls within the 

apartment (id. at BKB 000004-5). 

On or about January 30, 2019, Broadway Kitchens entered into change order agreements 

(the “change orders”) with plaintiffs modifying the contract, crediting plaintiffs for their 

provision of tile and plumbing materials for the hall bathroom and master bath (change orders 

#1-2, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 43-44). On or about March 1, 2019, Broadway Kitchens entered into 

another change order for kitchen cabinets (change order #4, NYSCEF Doc. No. 49).

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

2 of 14 [* 2]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 3 of 14

Lekovic, a subcontractor for Broadways Kitchens, was responsible for physically 

performing the renovations in plaintiffs’ apartment (Chinman EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at 

35, 134, 141). 

On or about April 5, 2019, plaintiffs terminated the contract with Broadway Kitchens 

(Rappaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 69-70; Kalatsky EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 

18-19, 58; Rapaport aff., NYSCEF Doc No. 66, ¶ 13). Plaintiffs contend that Broadway 

Kitchens’ failure to complete the work properly caused delays in the renovations. Plaintiff 

Rapaport testified that Broadway Kitchens installed the wrong size hardwood floor planks and 

only admitted its error after she measured the planks herself (Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. 

No. 39 at 69-70). She also testified that Broadway Kitchens used plaintiffs’ apartment to store 

garbage from another job in her building (id. at 84-85) as well as causing water to leak into the 

unit below plaintiffs (id. at 104-105). Plaintiff Rapaport further testified that a wall was wrongly 

installed in the open-concept-kitchen based on the wrong design plan being used (id. at 67-68), 

and Broadway Kitchens installed the floors badly, damaged kitchen cabinets, and delayed 

ordering kitchen materials (id. at 108). Additional defects were allegedly discovered after the 

contract was terminated, causing plaintiffs to partially redo the waterproofing in the bathroom 

and kitchen (id. at 95-96, 109). 

Jefferson Chinman, the president, chief financial officer, and owner of Broadway 

Kitchens, testified that plaintiffs failed to purchase the tile and the plumbing fixtures for the 

bathrooms, leaving them “stuck” waiting for these materials; failed to finalize plans for the 

kitchen until four months after the designs had been started; and prevented Broadway Kitchens 

from installing the cabinets, hardware, and tile backsplash in the kitchen when plaintiffs barred 

Broadway Kitchens from entering the building (Chinman EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at 9, 18, 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

3 of 14 [* 3]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 4 of 14

75-78). Chinman further testified that plaintiffs failed to provide vanities, counters, faucets, 

medicine cabinet, items for the shower, toilets, as well as bath accessories and shower valve or 

trim (id. at 79-81). He denies that plaintiffs ever expressed any dissatisfaction with the quality of 

the renovations (id. at 124-125); but admits to repairing a “slight leak in one of the valves” that 

caused “minor ceiling damage” to the store below plaintiffs’ apartment (id. at 135-136). 

After they terminated the contract, plaintiffs instructed the building staff to bar entry to 

Broadway Kitchens, and its employees were prevented from entering the apartment to install 

custom kitchen cabinets (Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 69-70; Kalatsky EBT tr, 

NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 18, 58; NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 48, 50). Plaintiffs, thereafter, continued to 

work with Lekovic to complete the renovations and when that was unsuccessful, hired new 

contractors to complete the renovations to the apartment (Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 

39 at 42-43, 45-46, 90-91; Kalatsky EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 19; invoice to CDP 

General Contractors, LLC, NYSCEF Doc No. 51). Plaintiffs allege that Broadway Kitchens 

breached the contract, and they suffered monetary damages totaling at least $294,419.83.2

On or about May 15, 2019, Broadway Kitchens filed a notice of mechanic’s lien against 

the property in the amount of $53,463 for unpaid materials and labor provided at the time of 

termination (mechanic’s lien, NYSCEF Doc No. 60).3 On August 3, 2020, plaintiffs, by their 

attorneys, made a written demand on Broadway Kitchens pursuant to Lien Law § 38, demanding 

that it furnish a verified statement setting forth the items of labor and/or materials within five 

2 Although plaintiffs alleged that they suffered damage in rent payments of $27,000 to temporarily live in another 

residence during the renovations (NYSCEF Doc No. 61 at ¶ 59), Rapaport testified that she did not know who 

owned the other residence (Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 125-127); but plaintiffs later clarified in 

response to defendant’s interrogatory requests that the premises belonged to Rapaport’s parents (response to 

Broadway Kitchens interrogatories, NYSCEF Doc No. 53 at 6-7).

3 Plaintiffs’ contention that the mechanic’s lien was filed in retaliation for filing this lawsuit is problematic, as the 

filing of the mechanic’s lien on May 15, 2019, predates the filing of this lawsuit on February 24, 2020. 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

4 of 14 [* 4]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 5 of 14

days after receipt of the demand (demand for itemized statement, NYSCEF Doc No. 63). On 

September 29, 2020, Broadway Kitchens provided a written statement for: (1) delivery of the 

wood flooring for $24,908; (2) purchase and delivery of kitchen cabinets for $18,681; and (3) 

sheetrock, spackle, trim, paint, and ancillary materials and work for $9,874, totaling $53,463 

(itemized statement of lien, NYSCEF Doc. No. 64). 

Standard of Law

A movant seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 in its favor “must make a

prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence 

to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 

NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The evidentiary proof tendered must be in admissible form (see Friends

of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). “This burden is a heavy one 

and on a motion for summary judgment, ‘facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party”’ (William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v Rabizadeh, 22 

NY3d 470, 475 [2013] [citation omitted]), “and every available inference must be drawn in the 

[non-moving party’s] favor” (De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 26 NY3d 742, 763 [2016]). Once met, 

this burden shifts to the opposing party who must then demonstrate the existence of a triable 

issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New

York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). If the existence of an issue of fact is even arguable, summary 

judgment must be denied (Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 311 [1972]; Museums at Stony

Brook v Village of Patchogue Fire Dept., 146 AD2d 572, 573 [2d Dept 1989]). Indeed, “[w]here 

different conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the motion should be denied” 

(Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 555 [1992]; accord Jaffe v Davis, 214 AD2d 

330, 330 [1st Dept 1995] [denial required where conflicting inferences may be drawn]). 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

5 of 14 [* 5]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 6 of 14

Discussion

The Contract

Broadway Kitchens’ motion for summary judgment is denied because the evidence 

submitted raises questions of fact regarding who breached the contract between the parties first.4

The elements of a breach of contract claim are the formation of a contract, plaintiff’s 

performance under the contract, defendant’s breach thereof, and damages as a result (see Belle

Light. LLC v Artisan Constr. Partners LLC, 178 AD3d 605, 606 [1st Dept 2019]). A party may 

unilaterally terminate a contract where the other party has breached and the breach is material 

(see Exportaciones Del Futuro Brands, S.A. De C.V. v Authentic Brands Group, LLC, 201AD3d 

499, 500 [1st Dept 2022] [“[a]s a result, plaintiff’s breaches of the agreement substantially

defeated the parties’ contractual objective and constituted material breaches, thus justifying

defendants’ termination of the contract” [internal quotation marks omitted]). The non-breaching 

party is discharged from performing any further obligations under the contract and can terminate 

the contract, sue for damages, or continue the contract (Awards.com v Kinko’s, Inc., 42 AD3d 

178, 188 [1st Dept 2007] [“[w]hen a party materially breaches a contract, the non-breaching 

party must choose between two remedies: it can elect to terminate the contract or continue it. If 

it chooses the latter course, it loses its right to terminate the contract because of the default”], 

affd 14 NY3d 791 [2010]). 

4 The court declines to deny Broadway Kitchens’ motion purely for its failure to tender a formal statement 

of material facts. In its current form, 22 NYCRR 202.8-g(a) provides that “[u]pon any motion for summary 

judgment, . . . the court may direct that there shall be annexed to the notice of motion a separate, short and concise 

statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine 

issue to be tried.” The court finds that there has been no prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the lack of a formal 

statement and, therefore, in its discretion, and in the interest of justice, the court excuses any asserted noncompliance in this regard (CPLR 2001; see, 22 NYCRR 202.1[b]). 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

6 of 14 [* 6]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 7 of 14

Broadway Kitchens argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as plaintiffs breached 

the contract by unilaterally terminating its services before the renovation of their apartment was 

completed (NYSCEF Doc No. 36). It contends that under section 1 of the contract’s Terms and 

Conditions, the contract “cannot be cancelled or altered by the Buyer without the prior written 

consent of BKB” (NYSCEF Doc No. 41 at BKB 000002). Defendant disputes that it breached 

the contract first; argues it did not perform defective work or delay performing its work; that 

plaintiffs have a remaining balance due of $87,178.00 under the contract; and that plaintiffs 

cannot prove any damages (NYSCEF Doc No. 36). In support of its motion Broadway Kitchens 

submits, among other things, the contract, the deposition transcripts of Chinman, Rapaport, and

plaintiff Eliyahu Kalatsky, change orders, email communications between the parties, invoices, 

and plaintiffs’ responses to defendant’s interrogatories, amended responses to defendant’s 

interrogatories, and responses to defendant’s request for production (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 38-55). 

Plaintiffs oppose, contending that the termination was justified because Broadway 

Kitchens was an “unreliable, unskilled, and dishonest contractor” whose “performance was 

fraught with complication and delays of its own making” (NYSCEF Doc No. 76 at 4). Plaintiffs 

dispute that Broadway Kitchens provided all the services under the agreement (id. at 10), arguing 

that Broadway Kitchens caused a six-week delay by not starting demolition as scheduled and not 

obtaining the required certificate of insurance even after plaintiffs had selected their appliances 

and issued the first payment (id. at 11-12). Plaintiffs also contend that they were not credited for 

all the payments made to Broadway Kitchens including those made to Lekovic (id. at 12-13). In 

their opposition, plaintiffs submit Broadway Kitchens’ answer, the deposition transcripts of 

Chinman, Rapaport, and Kalatsky, several pieces of email correspondence, and a text 

communication (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 79-89). 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

7 of 14 [* 7]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 8 of 14

The issue of who breached the contract first is a material and dispositive question of fact 

critical to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. If Broadway Kitchens’ delay and deficiency in 

completing its work constituted a material breach of the contract, then it would constitute cause 

for plaintiffs’ termination of its services (Fifteenth & Fifth LLC v LG Park Slope LLC, 199 

AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2021] [breach of a material obligation excuses defendant from 

performing], citing Grace v Nappa, 46 NY2d 560, 567 [1979].) However, if plaintiffs breached 

the agreement first, their cause of action for breach of contract fails. 

Plaintiffs admit to terminating the contract on or about April 5, 2019, contending that 

they were justified due to Broadway Kitchens’ failure to perform its services in a timely and 

competent manner (Rappaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 69-70; Kalatsky EBT tr, 

NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 18-19, 58; Rapaport aff., NYSCEF Doc No. 66, ¶ 13). Broadway 

Kitchens was allegedly unresponsive to plaintiffs’ complaints and questions, caused flooding to 

the unit below plaintiffs’ apartment, stored garbage in their apartment, erroneously installed a 

light fixture in the ceiling as well as an extra wall in the kitchen area, and installed the wrong 

size wood flooring (Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 67-70, 84-85, 95-96, 104-105, 

108-109). 

Broadway Kitchens, on the other hand, asserts that plaintiffs’ termination was not 

justified and that it was plaintiffs who prevented the completion of the work in a timely manner. 

Broadway Kitchens admitted receiving three payments in the amount of $12,454 each (answer, 

NYSCEF Doc No. 62 at ¶¶ 15, 21, 30), and that certain projects were not completed by January 

2019; but asserts that the delays were caused by the additional work required by the 

superintendent of the building, plaintiffs’ failure to make crucial decisions regarding the 

contemplated renovations, as well as plaintiffs’ failure to make complete and timely payments 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

8 of 14 [* 8]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 9 of 14

(Chinman EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at 79-81, 124-125). Defendant denies that the 

renovation work was done in an incompetent manner.

Here, the parties have presented contradictory evidence concerning their interactions and 

transactions that require credibility determinations to resolve (see Citibank, N.A. v Uri Schwartz

& Sons Diamonds Ltd., 97 AD3d 444, 446 [1st Dept 2012] [summary judgment denied where 

party raised material issues of fact requiring credibility determinations]). It is not the court’s 

function to determine issues of credibility on a motion for summary judgment (see also, Forrest 

v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 315 [2004] [“[c]redibility determinations, the 

weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury 

functions, not those of a judge . . . on a motion for summary judgment.”] [internal quotation

marks and citation omitted].) As there are genuine issues of material fact as to who breached the 

contract first, Broadway Kitchens’ motion for summary judgment is denied. 

The Mechanic’s Lien

Broadway Kitchens moves for summary judgment on its counterclaims to foreclose on 

the mechanics’ lien (NYSCEF Doc No. 36 at 16). Plaintiffs oppose, and independently move,

contending that the lien should be vacated due to willful exaggeration (NYSCEF Doc No. 76 at 

18). “To establish the right to enforce a mechanic’s lien, a contractor must make a prima facie 

case that the lien is valid, and that it is entitled to the amount asserted in the lien” (J.T. Magen &

Co., Inc. v Nissan N. Am., Inc., 178 AD3d 466, 466 [1st Dept 2019], citing Ruckle & Guarino, 

Inc. v Hangan, 49 AD3d 267, 267 [1st Dept 2008]). 

Broadway Kitchens failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter 

of law on its counterclaim to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien. It failed to show that it is entitled 

to the amount stated in the lien (Ruckle, 49 AD3d at 268). The amount of the outstanding 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

9 of 14 [* 9]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 10 of 14

balance contained in the mechanic’s lien is different than that contained in the accounting sheet 

(compare mechanic’s lien, NYSCEF Doc No. 60 with accounting sheet, NYSCEF Doc No. 74). 

Further, there are inconsistencies in the charges on the accounting sheet and those that appear on 

the itemized statement (compare itemized statement of lien, NYSCEF Doc No. 64 with

accounting sheet, NYSCEF Doc No. 74). Moreover, at deposition, Chinman did not recall 

exactly what the charges appearing on the mechanic’s lien were for (Chinman EBT tr, NYSCEF 

Doc. No. 38 at 113-114, 115-118, 142-143). Thus, the evidence presented does not adequately 

resolve the dispute concerning the amount owed, and triable issues of fact remain. Accordingly, 

so much of Broadway Kitchens’ motion for summary judgment to foreclose on the mechanic’s 

lien is denied.

Likewise, plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the mechanic’s lien for willful exaggeration is 

denied. Plaintiffs argue that Broadway Kitchens exaggerated its mechanic’s lien by at least 

$20,000, failing to properly credit them for a payment made to Lekovic for delivery of wood 

flooring, and provided an inadequate itemized statement devoid of details. Broadway Kitchens 

opposes the motion by arguing that plaintiffs fail to show any deliberate acts indicating willful 

exaggeration; but rather, presented evidence of a potential mistake in the amount of the lien 

based on their misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the documentary and testimonial

evidence (NYSCEF Doc No. 94 at 4-9). Broadway Kitchens further argues that plaintiffs’ 

motion is procedurally defective as plaintiffs never demanded a further detailed itemized 

statement prior to moving to discharge the lien, and Broadway Kitchens has not disobeyed a 

court order directing it to provide a more detailed statement pursuant to Lien Law § 38 (id. at 9-

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

10 of 14 [* 10]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 11 of 14

10).5 Broadway Kitchens further argues that it never had an obligation to provide an itemization 

because it does not seek an amount over the price the parties agreed to in the contract (id. at 12).

In reply, plaintiffs argue that Broadway Kitchens’ submission of only a memorandum of 

law in opposition is insufficient to oppose their motion (NYSCEF Doc No. 95 at 2-3). Plaintiffs 

further dispute Broadway Kitchens’ arguments that there was a misunderstanding or 

misinterpretation of the accounting worksheet or Chinman’s testimony, contending that there is 

no interpretation other than that Broadway Kitchens knew, at least one month prior to the filing 

of the lien, that it was overcharging plaintiffs (id. at 3-6). Plaintiffs also contend that there is no 

procedural deficiency because they challenged the validity of the mechanic’s lien in the 

complaint and mentioned this insufficiency in their reply to the counterclaims. Lastly, plaintiffs 

assert that they are not seeking any relief under Lien Law § 38 and referenced the deficiency in 

the itemized statement “solely [to] emphasize the difficulty of verifying the claims giving rise to 

Defendant’s Lien” (id. at 2, 7).

The court concurs that Broadway Kitchen’s submission of only a memorandum of law by 

counsel, in opposition, is insufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as 

a matter of law (Gruppo v London, 25 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2006]). However, the court 

finds, upon a search of the record, that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, 

that Broadway Kitchens willfully exaggerated the amount of the subject lien. No conclusive 

evidence was presented that Broadway Kitchens intentionally and deliberately inflated the lien 

amount. 

5 Lien Law § 38 provides, “[a] lienor who has filed a notice of lien shall, on demand in writing, deliver to the owner 

or contractor making such demand a statement in writing which shall set forth the items of labor and/or material and 

the value thereof which make up the amount for which [the lienor] claims a lien, and which shall also set forth the 

terms of the contract under which such items were furnished.”

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

11 of 14 [* 11]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 12 of 14

The issue whether the amount of a lien has been willfully exaggerated “is ordinarily 

determined at the trial of the foreclosure action”; summary judgement is appropriate only where 

the evidence of willful exaggeration is “conclusive” (Casella Constr. Corp. v 322 E. 93rd St.

LLC, 211 AD3d 458, 459 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). 

Courts have found conclusive evidence of willful exaggeration based on the lienor’s own 

documents and records, the relevant contracts, and the testimony and affidavits of fact witnesses

(see, Casella Constr. Corp., 211 AD3d at 459 [affirming willful exaggeration based on contract 

provision that insurance proceeds was “the sole and total compensation due”]; Inter Metal 

Fabricators, Inc. v HRH Constr. LLC, 94 AD3d 529, 529 [1st Dept 2012] [affirming willful 

exaggeration based on the lienor’s own documents and testimony that the costs and expenses 

were knowingly marked up]; Northe Group, Inc. v Spread NYC, LLC, 88 AD3d 557, 557 [1st 

Dept 2011] [willful exaggeration affirmed where lienor’s own invoices and written agreement of 

parties showed that markups were imposed].)

Relying on Lien Law § 39, plaintiffs argue that a willful overstatement of the lien results 

in a forfeiture of the lien. Lien Law § 39 provides, in relevant part, that in an action to enforce a 

mechanic’s lien, “if the court shall find that a lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount for 

which he claims a lien as stated in his notice of lien, his lien shall be declared to be void and no 

recovery shall be had thereon.” However, “[i]naccuracy in amount of lien, if no exaggeration is 

intended, does not void a mechanic’s lien; willfulness also must be shown” (Goodman v Del-SaCo Foods, 15 NY2d 191, 194 [1965] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]. “The fact 

that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a [party] 

willfully exaggerated a lien” (Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp., 1 AD3d 580, 581 [2nd Dept 

2003] [citations omitted]). 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

12 of 14 [* 12]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 13 of 14

Plaintiffs’ reliance on Strongback Corp. v N.E.D. Cambridge Ave. Dev. Corp. (25 AD3d 

392 [1st Dept 2006]), where the court dismissed the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien based upon 

willful exaggeration pursuant to Lien Law § 39, is misplaced. In that case, the evidence 

conclusively showed that the lien was not justified, as plaintiff conceded to being paid a sum, 

prior to filing the lien, that was more than he was owed (Strongback Corp., 25 AD3d at 394). 

Here, there is no showing that Broadway Kitchens knew the lien amount was false and intended 

to exaggerate the lien amount (J.T. Magen & Co., Inc., 178 AD3d at 467 [issue of exaggeration 

“requires not only a showing of exaggeration, but also that the exaggeration was done 

intentionally”] [ citation omitted]).

Unlike the circumstance in Strongback Corp., plaintiffs rely exclusively on circumstantial 

evidence to dispute the amount of the lien such as a lack of invoices and a possibility that 

Broadway Kitchens may not have credited plaintiffs all payments received by it or Lekovic 

(Rapaport aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 66, ¶ 19). Plaintiffs have only presented three canceled 

checks made out to Broadway Kitchens totaling $33,687 (canceled checks, NYSCEF Doc. No. 

68-69, 71). While plaintiffs assert that they paid Broadway Kitchens a sum of $58,595 

(Rapaport EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39 at 121-122), this amount is less than the $79,541 

Broadway Kitchens credited to plaintiffs on the accounting sheet (accounting sheet, NYSCEF 

Doc No. 74). Further, Chinman testified that plaintiffs were only authorized to pay Lekovic 

directly for the waterproofing and the sound proofing of the wood floors and a door (Chinman 

EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at 66-69, 89-90; email from Chinman to plaintiffs dated March 

15, 2019, NYSCEF Doc No. 52 at BKB 000084). Thus, a summary determination cannot be 

made at this time, as it cannot be said conclusively at this time that the amount of the lien was 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

13 of 14 [* 13]
651200/2020 RAPAPORT, PENINA vs. BROADWAY KITCHENS & BATHS

Motion No. 002 003

Page 14 of 14

exaggerated and, if so, done willfully (see, e.g., On the Level Enters., Inc. v 49 E. Houston LLC, 

104 AD3d 500, 500-501 [1st Dept 2013]). 

As the parties dispute the accuracy of the lien amount, material issues of fact exist and 

the motion to cancel the mechanic’s lien is denied. 

The court has considered the parties’ remaining contentions and finds them unavailing. 

All relief not expressly addressed herein is denied. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Mot. Seq. No. 002) is 

denied; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to cancel the mechanic’s lien (Mot. Seq. No. 003) is 

denied; and it is further

ORDERED that this matter is respectfully referred to the Clerk of the Trial Assignment 

Part to be scheduled for trial.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

ENTER:

2/27/2024 $SIG$

DATE LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:51 PM INDEX NO. 651200/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

14 of 14

□ 

□ 

[* 14]