Case Name: Samuel Weiss, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Kenney, Katie Kenney and Others, Defendants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05
Citations: 59 Misc. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: . Samuel Weiss, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Kenney, Katie Kenney and Others, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 279–281

Head Matter:
. Samuel Weiss, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Kenney, Katie Kenney and Others, Defendants.
(City Court of the City of New York, Trial Term,
May, 1908.)
Mechanics’ Liens: Notice of lien — Nature and amount of work; Foreclosure — Judgment — Rendition of personal judgment — On failure to establish lien.
A notice under the Mechanic’s Lien Law, which states the amount claimed for labor, the amount for materials furnished and the amount for materials to be furnished in the alternative, fails to comply with the requirements of the Lien Law.
The lien being invalid, the plaintiff in an action to foreclose it may have a personal judgment against the party who is personally liable.
Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.
C. H. Collins, for plaintiff.
W. F. Walsh, for defendants.

Opinion:
Delehanty, J.
The law is well settled that, to entitle a claimant under the Mechanic's Lien Law to the benefit of the statute, the notice of lien must comply substantially with all its requirements, and if there is not such a compliance no lien is acquired. McKinney v. White, 15 App. Div. 423 ; affd., 162 N. Y. 601. The criticism upon the notice of lien filed by the plaintiff herein is that it is impossible to determine therefrom how much is claimed for labor, how much for the materials furnished, or how much for the materials to be furnished. Each of these matters is stated in the alternative and, in the construction of similar statutes, the courts have uniformly held that such a statement is defective for the reason that it states neither the one fact nor the other and, in effect, operates as an exclusion of the statement of any fact. FTew Jersey Steel & Iron C'o. v. Robinson, 85 App. Div. 512; Bossert v. Fox, 89 id. 7; Alexander v. Hollander, 106 id. 404; Finn v. Smith, 186 N. Y. 465. I am forced, therefore, to hold that the notice in question fails to comply with section 9 of the Lien Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 418) • and that the filing thereof did not create a lien in plaintiff's favor. Such being the case I am of the opinion that plaintiff is not entitled, as claimed, to maintain the action against Kenney, the owner of the premises, and to recover, under section 3412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment for the amount due him from Schweitzer, the contractor. As I construe that provision of the law, the lienor, if he fails for any reason to establish a valid lien, but does establish that a sum is due to him which he might recover in action upon contract, thereupon becomes entitled to a personal judgment ag'ainst the party to the action who is- liable therefor. The only party who is liable' to plaintiff, who is a subcontractor, is his principal, Schweitzer, the general contractor. Certainly there is no privity between plaintiff and Kenney, the owner. I conclude, therefore, that there should be judgment as follows: For plaintiff against defendant Schweitzer for $150 and costs; for defendant Kenney, dismissing the complaint, with costs and adjudging the plaintiff's lien invalid and directing its cancellation; that the liens of the defendants John G. McMillan, Henry H. Meise and James W. Sweeney be canceled of record for failure of said defendants to appear or answer herein; that the liens filed by the defendants E. M. Pritchard & Son Company and Church E. Gates & Co. are valid and enforceable against the premises in question, in the order named, for the agreed sum of $375, without costs. Present decision and findings accordingly on notice.
Ordered accordingly.