Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_State_Richmond_County_Supreme_Court/100930---2015/Adria_Infrastructure_LLC_v._Henick-Lane_Inc._et_al/91/
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 23:52:58
Document Index: 506334679

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', '§12', '§2', '§44', '§23', '§21', '§37', '§383', '§5', '§66', '§44', '§21', '§5', '§12', '§12']

Adria Infrastructure, LLC v. Henick-Lane, Inc. et al, 100930/2015, 91 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond County May. 23, 2018)
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:30 PM
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 05312018 04:30 PM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91
`100930/2015
`INDEX NO. 100930/2015
` flIV flD
`05/23/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
`Exhibit 14
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:30 PM
`: 27
`dLERit™Ò3f2472017
`1FIEED:""RTC1tROND"COUNTT
`Ply
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`03/24/2017
`NYSCEF:
`c5
`OF RICHMOND
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
`ADRIA
`INFRASTRUCTURE,
`Plaintif
`JACOB'S
`FACILITIES,
`HENICK-LANE,
`DORMITORY
`CASUALTY
`TRAVELERS
`ELECTRICAL
`LEVEST
`AND SURETY
`DOES 1-10,
`- STATE
`CONTROLS,
`and any other
`1-10,
`Lienholders,
`1 to 12 were
`DCM Part 4
`Kim Dollard
`Nos.
`100930/15
`2566-002
`2592-003
`2800-004
`3877-005
`150364/16
`30th
`of September,
`2016:
`Pages
`of Motion
`and Memorandum
`13, 2016).........................................................................................1
`(dated
`to Compel
`Inc, with
`Supporting
`of Cross
`to Consolidate
`and Exhibits
`17, 2016).........................................................................................2
`for Partial
`of Cross Motion
`29,
`2016).........................................................................................3
`1FEED:""RTCHNONU"COUNTT
`of Damjan
`Stanivukovic
`to Cross Motion
`4, 2016).......................................................................................4
`8, 2016).......................................................................................5
`John M. Rondello,
`8, 2016).......................................................................................6
`in Further
`6, 2016)..................................................................................7
`.7
`.8
`to Amend
`of Lien
`19, 2016)................................................................................8
`by Defendants
`to Motion
`Inc
`22, 2016).................................................................................9
`Electric
`23, 2016).................................................................................10
`27, 2016).................................................................................11
`in Reply
`2016).................................................................................12
`28,
`(No.
`2566-002)
`and cross motion
`2592-003)
`Henick-Lane
`"Henick-Lane"
`"Henick-Lane")
`consolidation
`discovery
`are denied;
`the cross motion
`2800-004)
`dLERK"03
`IFIIith:^™RTCHRONIFCOUNTT
`PM)
`"DASNY")
`as is the cross motion
`3877-005)
`"Adria")
`ol'
`lien.
`To the extent
`relevant,
`arise
`from "work
`on a public
`improvement
`the reconstruction
`of a portion
`[the]
`Staten
`Courthouse"
`(see Verified
`[Adria
`8).
`Insofar
`ofthe
`action],
`as it appears,
`DASNY,
`an agreement
`on September
`17, 2009,
`hiring
`as general
`reconstruction
`at 33-36;
`see also
`DASNY's
`"JFI")
`subsequently
`hired
`by DASNY
`at 33-36).
`in pursuance
`ofits
`with DASNY,
`plaintiff/subcontractor
`placed
`separate
`29, 2010,
`for materials
`and services
`to complete
`the reconstruction.
`is undisputed
`obligated
`to "furnish
`install
`fittings"
`at 9, 12), while
`to "provide...
`steamfitt[ers]"
`frtt[ers]"
`steam
`at 39, 42).
`the total
`due and owing
`the sum of $742,
`651.12
`at 9, 12), with
`a statutory
`"Notice
`Mechanics
`Law[§l
`for Account
`of Public
`Improvements"
`on December
`6, 2013
`at 14; see also Defendant
`"E").
`A like
`sum of $4,180,706.72
`at 39, 42,
`44;
`see also Defendant
`"G").'
`' PursuanttoLien
`a subcontractor
`§12,
`or a public
`by the state
`lien with
`the head
`the department
`furnishes
`a "public
`or bureau
`or materials
`improvement"
`(Lien
`of such
`in improving
`Law §2[7]),
`dLERit™Ò3fŽ472017
`1FIEED:""RTCHNOND"COUN'1T
`commenced
`to foreclose
`by the filing
`of a Summons
`and Verified
`23, 2015
`(see Defendant
`"B").
`9, 2015,
`an Amended
`adding
`Corp
`"Levest")
`as a party
`had also
`the project
`"C")
`in Lien
`§44.
`to foreclosure,
`of actions
`DASNY
`and JFI
`(1) unjust
`enrichment
`in quantum
`meruit
`or about
`2016,
`a separate
`mechanics'
`$167,970.93
`Henick-Lane's
`alleging
`a balance
`claimed
`to have
`performed
`on the subject
`to a subcontract
`in February
`of 2012
`JCI"),
`subcontractor
`"H").
`presently
`is a motion
`the Adria
`et al.
`2002]).
`the Legislature
`requirements,
`improvements.
`of a
`of private
`of note
`to restrict
`the rights
`that City-owned
`creditors
`of City-owned
`is inalienable
`consistent
`or demolition
`or corporate
`v. City
`"substantial
`§23).
`and withthecomptroller
`charged
`to the contract
`174 [1" Dept
`294 AD2d
`173,
`provision
`its several
`is applicable
`liens,
`as here,
`the other,
`in this manner
`or with
`the custody
`and disbursement
`(see EMC Iron Works
`lien"
`has explicitly
`the improvement
`is worthy
`intended
`apparently
`circumstance
`i'ILED:^™RTCHNONU"COUNTT
`CLERK"037
`PN|
`A motion
`rests within
`discretion
`(see CPLR 602;
`Mtge
`Servicing,
`.Servicing,
`v. Sharrocks,
`92 AD3d
`620,
`[2"d Dept
`2012]).
`Nevertheless,
`common
`law or
`fact
`exist,
`is warranted
`opposing
`demonstrates
`prejudice
`to a substantial
`involve
`lienors
`and materials
`furnished
`project.
`undisputed
`unrelated
`JCI which,
`in turn,
`subcontract
`Levest.
`is asserting
`multiple
`is only
`the surety
`posted
`Henick-Lane.
`the two
`concern
`law and
`[2nd Dept
`(cf
`Sconov.
`denied.2
`Kodsi,
`102 AD3d
`947,
`Hence,
`consolidate
`to its
`partial
`third,
`fifth
`support,
`contends,
`inter
`alia,
`is no
`longer
`a proper
`as sought
`in its fifth
`of action.
`regard,
`12,
`$742,651.12
`discharged
`posting
`of a undertaking
`of $816,916.23
`21, 2014
`(see Affirmation
`of John M. Rondello,
`19, 2016,
`paras
`9-10;
`"C"
`"Discharge
`of Lien";
`of Carol
`Sigmond,
`3). Pursuant
`to Lien
`Law §21(5),
`a lien against
`due or
`to become
`2The
`exchange
`academic.
`of discovery
`has rendered
`ML1th:^™kTCIBibNtrt0UNTT
`CLERk"03jiit7
`a contractor
`be discharged
`or after
`the beginning
`of an action
`by a contractor
`a bond
`or undertaking
`in an amount
`to one hundred
`and ten percent
`lien conditioned
`the payment
`of any judgment
`be recovered
`in an action
`to enforce
`the lien
`§37[7]);
`see Norden
`Elec
`Ideal
`Supply
`Corp,
`154 AD2d
`580,
`581).
`settled
`"[u]pon
`a discharge
`bond[,]
`attaches
`to the bond,
`is substituted
`the liened
`property"property"
`(Tri-City
`v. People,
`63 NY2d
`969,
`971).
`city-owned
`properties
`inalienable
`Charter
`§383,
`"property"
`attaches,
`and which
`secures
`the creditor's
`payment,
`the City's
`in obtaining
`is in the case of privately
`realty;
`rather,
`is the moneys
`or of such
`improvements
`(EMC Iron
`Works
`174;
`see Lien
`§5).3
`Remedial
`in nature,
`law entitled
`to a liberal
`designed
`to carry
`its enactment
`(see Riverhead
`Transit
`Mix
`v. Walsh
`Constr.
`[In
`Bankr.
`LEXIS
`2166).
`Riverhead
`Mix Corp]),
`liberal
`constructions
`is not without
`limit,
`authorize
`expansion
`to include
`Authorities
`corporate
`(Pub
`re Riverhead
`corporation"
`Mix Corp
`*20
`(Bankr.
`the Dormitory
`Law defines
`and politic
`Law §§l 677,
`see Riverhead
`1678;
`Mix Corp)),
`"is
`a corporation
`the state,
`(Gen
`3NewYork'sPublic
`as "a body
`(DASNY)
`sued"
`"to
`sue and be
`Co [In
`Walsh
`SDNY
`1995).
`states,
`or partly
`to the people
`thereof'
`the profits
`Constr
`§66[4];
`to construct
`or operate
`inure
`to the benefit
`*l9
`Corp]),
`'Z017
`fKWiBFFEl
`)äHiifBaiiMWii0iHi3ï•RiiK•F•IúI3ñK•Wf3i
`matters
`beyond
`legislature.
`§44
`provides,
`in pertinent
`part,
`(whichever
`is warranted),
`all persons
`appearing
`to be the owners
`be joined
`as defendants,
`discharging
`§§21[5];
`37[7]).
`to be necessary
`parties,
`fisc
`be attached
`has replaced
`the real
`or public
`as security
`the debt,
`attacked
`§5 ; Bryant
`Equip
`v. A-1 Moore
`Contr
`51 AD2d
`792 ; see also
`1995 Bankr.
`at *19
`1995;
`ef Martirano
`v. Briar
`104 AD2d
`1028).
`in December
`of 2014.
`the undertaking
`involves
`to be due for
`improvement,
`(its
`of action)
`to dismissal
`as against
`DASNY.
`its motion,
`is.,
`third
`of action,
`it contracted
`its co-defendant,
`rather
`plaintiff/subcontractor,
`privity,
`assert
`a claim
`it.
`a property
`hires
`to perform
`to a
`latter
`of quasi
`contract,
`it expressly
`the subcontractor's
`(see Sears
`Ready Mix,
`Ltd
`."Wh"COUNTT
`2477017
`"037
`v. Lighthouse
`Mar,
`Inc,
`127 AD3d
`845,
`2015]).
`"[t]he
`[owner
`has]
`[subcontractor's]
`on such
`a theory;
`[subcontractor]
`working
`[owner]
`it performed
`its work,
`in unjust
`enrichment"
`at 846
`[internal
`quotation
`omitted]).
`"a subcontractor
`[generally]
`whom it
`privity"
`(see Vertical
`Progression,
`v. Canyon
`Urban
`Funds,
`126 AD3d
`784,
`786).
`to DASNY's
`for summary
`Damjan
`Stanivukovie,
`a member
`of Adria,
`attests
`"the
`substantially
`[DASNY's]
`mismanagement
`and owner
`directed
`extensions"
`(see Affidavit
`Stanivukovic,
`3, 5). More
`communicate
`is claimed
`"DASNY
`itself,
`[JFI],
`in [a]
`to act and respond
`[in a timely
`manner]
`to myriad...
`issue[sJ
`causing
`delays
`Project"
`at 5).
`In the opinion
`this Court,
`Adria's
`is unresponsive
`insufficient
`to raise
`a triable
`as to DASNY's
`As a result,
`that Adria
`has failed
`to demonstrate
`any action
`to induce
`plaintiffto
`believe
`for plaintiff's
`To the contrary,
`all of DASNY's
`transactions
`cited
`appear
`the movant
`and Henick-Lane.
`can be no claim
`of unjust
`in the absence
`of any evidence
`of a relationship
`4Nevertheless.
`can sometimes
`prevail
`on a cause
`g.,
`them"
`an obligation
`imposing
`justify
`"where
`dealings
`the owner
`and the
`of privity
`the initial
`"COUNTT
`2'017
`dLERK"037
`inducement
`to believe
`a defendant
`its services
`JP Plumbing
`v. Born
`to Build
`137 AD3d
`976,
`977).
`Clearly,
`here.
`branch
`of DASNY's
`and fourth
`(quantum
`meruit)
`ofaction
`is granted,
`as well.
`its notice
`nunc
`pro
`tune
`to reduce
`$4,180,706.72
`to $2,962,489.37,
`that while
`the amendment
`be allowed,
`the question
`willful
`exaggeration
`its lien
`survives
`amendment.
`§12-a(2),
`case,
`the court may,
`to existing
`lienors,
`mortgagees
`amending
`"a lienor
`or private
`tunc".
`§12-a(1)
`amend
`and the owner,
`no action
`or proceeding
`or cancel
`the purpose
`is to reduce
`the lien...
`[However,]
`of wilful
`survive
`amendment"
`(see also Wellbilt
`v Fireman,
`167-168).
`to $2,962,489.37
`granted,
`the issue
`of any wilful
`to be resolved
`(see Exec
`Towers
`at Lido
`v. Metro
`Servs,
`303 AD2d
`545).
`compel
`is denied
`in view ofplaintiff's
`to its interrogatories
`for discovery
`and inspection.
`1FIriED:^™RTCHNONU"COUNTY"'CLER10d3f24f2017
`PNG
`is denied;
`as academic;
`s third,
`be severed
`defendant;
`31, 2015,
`pro tune,
`to be due and
`herewith.
`1, 2016
`ENTER,
`KIM DOLLARD,
`A.J.S.C.
`DEC
`J. FIALA