Case Name: In re HEDDEN CONST. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05
Citations: 129 N.Y.S. 827
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re HEDDEN CONST. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 129
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
In re HEDDEN CONST. CO.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
May, 1911.)
Mechanics’ Diens (§ 222 )—Discharge—Bond—Indemnity Required—“Con tractor.”
Lien Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 33) § 19, subd. 4, provides that a lien may 'be discharged by an owner or contractor executing an undertaking to the clerk of the county where the premises are situated in such sums as the court or judge may direct, not less than the amount claimed in the notice of the lien, conditioned for the payment of any judgment which may be rendered against the property for the enforcement of the lien. Meld, that the right to discharge a lien by filing an undertaking is not limited to the contractor named in the notice of the lien, but accrues to any one within the meaning of the term “contractor,” as defined by sec tian 2, viz., a person who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for the improvement thereof; and hence an original contractor, having agreed to keep the premises free from liens, could not be deprived of the right to an order fixing an amount of the undertaking necessary to discharge a lien, because the lienors, who were subcontractors, did not name the original contractor in their notice of lien as the contra'ctor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mechanics’ Liens, Cent. Dig. § 406; Dec. Dig. § 222.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1534-1537; vol. 8, p. 7616.]
Application of the Hedden Construction Company for an order discharging a mechanic’s lien on certain realty, filed by the Commonwealth Roofing Company. On motion to vacate an order fixing the amount of an undertaking required to discharge a mechanic’s lien.
Motion denied.
Edo E- Mercelis, for the motion.
Einch & Coleman (John Burlinson Coleman, of counsel), opposed.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GIEGERICH, J.
The Hedden Construction Company is contractor for the erection of the building upon the lands described in the notice of lien, under a contract with the owner thereof. Such company obtained an order fixing the amount of the undertaking to be given by it as a contractor to discharge the said lien, which is sought to be vacated and set aside upon the grounds hereinafter stated. It appears from the papers submitted that by the terms of the contract the said Hedden Construction Company is required to keep the said premises free and clear of all mechanic's liens, and promptly obtain the cancellation and discharge of any that might be filed against the premises by any subcontractors; that the Hedden Construction Company sublet some of the works to a subcontractor, to wit, the Empire Cornice Works, which in turn sublet some of the work to the Commonwealth Roofing Company, which filed the notice of lien herein, and which makes this application to vacate the said order fixing the amount of the undertaking, upon the ground that the said Hedden Construction Company is not named in said lien as contractor or otherwise, but that the Empire Cornice Works is therein named as contractor.
The lien law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 33), so far as applicable to the question under consideration, provides:
"Sec. 19. A lien other than a lien for labor performed' or materials furnished for a public improvement specified in this article may be discharged as follows: (4) Either before or after the beginning of an action by an '-owner or contractor executing an undertaking with two or more sureties, who shall be freeholders, to the clerk of the county where the premises are situated, in such sums as the court or judge thereof may direct, not less than the amount claimed in the notice of lien conditioned for the payment of any judgment which may be rendered against the property for the enforcement of the lien.''
As I construe the foregoing provisions, the right to discharge a lien by the filing of an undertaking is not limited to the contractor named in the notice of lien; but it is given to any one who may come within the meaning of the term "contractor" as defined by section 2 of the lien law, viz.:
"A person who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for' the improvement therein."
The Hedden Construction Company could not, therefore, be deprived of the right to obtain an order fixing the amount of the undertaking to discharge the lien simply because the Commonwealth Roofing Company, the lienors,-did not name the former in their notice of lien as the contractor. Such right is expressly conferred by the statute, and the defendant, the real contractor, could not be deprived of that right by any act or omission on the part of the lienor.
Motion denied, without costs.