Case Name: In re GREINES et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-10-19
Citations: 112 N.Y.S. 640
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re GREINES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 112
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
In re GREINES et al.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
October 19, 1908.)
■ Mechanics1 Liens—'Undertaking—Cancellation.
The undertaking given to discharge a mechanic’s lien, pursuant to Lien Law (Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418), § 18, subd. 4, cannot be canceled where the time within which an action which might be brought to recover a judgment against the property on the claim contained In the notice oí lien has expired.
In the matter of the application of Charles Greines and "another to cancel and discharge a bond given by the American Bonding Company to discharge a mechanic’s lien by John F. Cronin, lienor, pursuant to Lien Law (Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418) § 18, subd. 4.
Motion denied.
Saul J. Baron (J. J. Pantell, of counsel), for the motion.
Henry L. Herzog, opposed.

Opinion:
GIEGERICH, J.
Although the time within which an action can be brought by the lienor upon the claim contained in the notice of lien seems to have expired (Uris v. Brackett Realty Co., 114 App. Div. 29, 99 N. Y. Supp. 642), counsel for the applicants has not cited, nor have I been able to find, any authority or provision of law which authorizes the cancellation of the undertaking given to discharge a mechanic's lien, pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 18 of the lien law (Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418), where, as here, the time within which an action which might be brought to recover a judgment "against the property" on the claim contained in the notice of lien has expired.
Hafker v. Henry, 5 App. Div. 258, 39 N. Y. Supp. 134, quoted by the respondent, and Matter of Thirty-Fifth St. & Fifth Ave. R. R., 121 App. Div. 625, 106 N. Y. Supp. 390, relied upon by the applicants, do not apply, because both those cases arose under provisions relative to the discharge of a lien by a deposit of the amount claimed (Laws 1885, p. 592, c. 342, § 24, subd. 2, as superseded by Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418, § 19), which are unlike those relating to a discharge by the giving of an undertaking (Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418, § 18, subd. 4, which superseded Laws 1885, p. 592, c. 342, § 24, subd. 6). See Matter of Thirty-Fifth St. & Fifth Ave. R. R., supra.
The motion to cancel the undertaking given to discharge the lien and to release the sureties thereon from any and all obligations thereunder is therefore denied, but without costs.