Court Opinion

ID: 9958732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:12.331169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.683839
License: Public Domain

Your Vet 1, LLC v Eastman, Cooke & Assoc., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31140(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157678/2023
               Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne
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.
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157678/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY

             PRESENT:       HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE                                PART                             41M
                                                                       Justice
                                                          ·------X                INDEX NO.         157678/2023
              YOUR VET 1, LLC
                                                                                  MOTION DATE        08/01/2023
                                                 Plaintiff,
                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.        001
                                         - V -

              EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC,                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                          MOTION
                                                 Defendant.
             ----------------------------X

             The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
             18, 19,20, 21, 22,23
             were read on this motion to/for                                     MECHANICS LIEN

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                    Petitioner, Your Vet 1, LLC, is seeking an order, pursuant to New York Lien Law§ 38,

            vacating and discharging with prejudice the Mechanic's Lien, in the amount of $716,289.37,

            filed against Block 142, Lots 1103 and 1104, the property known as 200 Chambers Street, New

            York, NY. Petitioner is also seemingly seeking an order finding that the Lien was willfully

            exaggerated and granting the petitioner treble damages, pursuant to Lien Law Section§ 39. For

            the reasons set forth below, petitioner's Verified Petition is granted to the limited extent that the

            Mechanic's Lien is discharged without prejudice. The remaining portions of the Petition, seeking

            a determination of willful exaggeration and treble damages, as well as all other requests not

            expressly granted herein, are denied.

                    On June 14, 2023, the respondent, Eastman, Cooke & Associates, LLC, filed a

            Mechanic's Lien against the property alleging the amount of $716,289.37 which remains due and

            owing. The Notice of Lien indicates that the respondent was employed by petitioner, that

            respondent furnished or was to furnish materials, or performed or was to perform professional
             157678/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                        Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                              1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157678/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            services, necessary for demolition, mill work, installation of doors/frames/hardware, drywall,

            carpentry, masonry, tile, flooring, painting, plumbing, bathrooms, HVAC, electrical, fire and

            smoke alarms, light fixtures, and appliances. The Notice also indicates a contract was made with

            petitioner and the first item of work was performed and materials were furnished on September

            29, 2023, and the last item of work was performed, and materials were furnished on March 6,

            2023. Finally, the Lien states that said labor and materials were performed and furnished for and

            used in the improvement of the real property described therein.

                   On July 14, 2023, in response to the Lien and pursuant to Section 38 of the Lien Law,

            petitioner served a demand for an itemized statement on respondent. On July 17, 2023, the

            demand was received by the respondent and respondent failed to respond. Also on July 14, 2023,

            the petitioner notified respondent that it disputed the Lien and contested the amount as willfully

            exaggerated. Therefore, on July 26, 2023, petitioner notified respondent that given the lack of

            response it would be filing this application to vacate the Lien.

                   Respondent provided an itemized statement to petitioner, dated August 21, 2023, prior to

            filing an answer and opposition papers in this action. Accordingly, respondent argues that the

            petition is now rendered moot as the itemized statement has been provided. Respondent further

            argues that the petition is pre-mature in that petitioner failed to comply with Lien Law§ 38 by

            first seeking a court order compelling respondent to provide an itemized statement. Finally,

            respondent argues that a mechanic's lien may not be cancelled and discharged for willful

            exaggeration absent filing a foreclosure action.

                   However, in reply, the petitioner asserts that the itemized statement is defective as a

            matter oflaw as it fails to comply with the requirements of Lien Law§ 38 and asserts that the

            Lien is invalid on its face, pursuant to Lien Law Section § 19 (6).

             157678/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157678/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            Lien Law Section§ 38:

                   Under Lien Law§ 38, once a demand for an itemized statement has been made, an

            itemized statement in writing shall set forth the items of labor and/or material, the value of the

            material which make up the amount of the lien and set forth the terms of the contract under

            which such items were furnished (NY Lien Law§ 38). Itemization is required only when it is

            necessary to apprise of the details of the lienor's claim, such as when extra work and materials

            are claimed or when there is an underlying dispute involving the nature and value of the work

            performed (Pineda v AB Painting & Const., Inc. [NY Sup Ct, New York County 2015); Hudson

            Meridian Const. Group, LLC v ML Woodwork Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 3 l 886[U], 4 [NY Sup Ct,

            New York County 2022]; Solow v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 60 AD2d 826, 826 [l st Dept 1978)

            appeal dismissed 46 NY2d 836 [1978)). The statement served by the lienor should set forth the

            description, quantity and costs of various kinds of martials and the details as to the nature of

            labor, time spent and hourly or other rate of labor charges (Pineda v AB Painting & Const., Inc.

            [NY Sup Ct, New York County 2015); relying on 819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v T & A. Assoc., Inc., 24

            AD2d 446, 446 [1st Dept 1965)).

                   Petitioner correctly asserts that the itemized statement provided by the respondent fails to

            comply with the requirements of Section 38. Importantly, the itemized statement fails to include

            a demonstration of the terms of a contract or agreement between the parties or establish that the

            petitioner consented to the terms and/or value of the work to be performed. Further, the itemized

            statement is deficient as it includes broad lump sums and categories, lacks descriptions or

            specifications for quantities of materials and break-down oflabor, fails to substantiate change

            orders or otherwise show that petitioner knew and approved them, or indicate what has been paid

            and what remains outstanding. "[T]he statement served by the lienor should set forth the

             157678/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                      Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                     3 of 5
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157678/2023
 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           description, quantity and costs of various kinds of materials and the details as to the nature of

           labor, time spent and hourly or other rate of the labor charges" (819 Sixth Ave. Corp. v T & A.

           Assoc., Inc., 24 AD2d 446, 446 [1st Dept 1965]). The statement supplied by the respondent is not

           sufficiently itemized to permit the petitioner to check the claim, and therefore does not meet the

           requirements of Lien Law§ 38 (125 Broad CHP, LLC v Fine Craftsman Group, LLC, 2023 NY

           Slip Op 31549[U], 4 [NY Sup Ct, New York County 2023]; Matter of DePalo v McNamara, 139

           AD2d 646,646 [2d Dept 1988]).

                  Petitioner also contends that the contents of the respondent's Notice of Lien and/or Lien

           are defective on its face. Lien Law § 19 provides the grounds for which a lien may be summarily

           discharged, which includes "[w]here it appears on from the face of the notice of the lien that the

           claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished and for

           which a lien is claimed, or where for any other reason the notice of lien is invalid by reason of

           failure to comply with the provisions of section nine of this article" the party may apply for an

           order summarily discharging ofrecord the alleged lien (NY Lien Law§ 19 [6]). To be

           summarily discharged, it must be invalid on its face (JT2 Squared Realty, LLC v Interiors by

           ShelleyStein-Bigajer, 219 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2d Dept 2023]).

                  Petitioner alleges that the deficient response by respondent demonstrates that the Lien is

           defective on its face, and the comi concurs. The respondent failed to establish an agreement or

           contract with the petitioner, failed to demonstrate that it performed labor or furnished materials

           at the consent or request of the petitioner, failed to provide proof of payment or consent for the

           budget, materials, orders and/or work that is claimed, or substantiate that construction or delivery

           was ever completed (see NY Lien Law§§ 3; 9). Further, petitioner has demonstrated the Lien is

           defective on its face as there was no contract between the parties, the outstanding Lien amount is

            157678/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                      Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                         4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157678/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           unsubstantiated, and the Lien incorrectly states that labor was performed and material were

           provided beginning on September 29, 2022, and ending on March 6, 2023. Similar to Your Vet 1,

           LLC v Eastman, Cooke & Assoc., LLC, the dates on the Lien and the dates in the supporting

           documentation provided by respondent conflict with one another, with the dates on the Lien pre-

           dating all documentation provided in the itemized statement (2023 NY Slip Op 34397[U], 4 [NY

           Sup Ct, New York County 2023]). Additionally, the Lien does not comply with Lien Law§ 9(7)

           as it is insufficiently verified in that it states that "the statements and matters in paragraphs

           number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 herein are alleged on information and belief' but fails to state that, as

           to those matters, he believes it to be true (see Matter of Basso v LO Electric/Oliver, 46 Misc 3d

           1227(A) [Sup Ct Putnam County 2015]). Accordingly, petitioner has shown that the Lien is

           defective. The court has considered all additional arguments raised by the parties and find them

           to be unavailing.

                     Accordingly, it is hereby

                     ORDERED and ADJUDGED that petitioner Your Vet 1, LLC's Verified Petition is

           granted to the extent that the Mechanic Lien of respondent, Eastman, Cooke & Associates, LLC,

           dated June 14, 2023, in the amount of $716,289.37, is discharged without prejudice; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the remainder of the Verified Petition is denied.

                     This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                     4/1/2024
                      DATE                                                        NICHOLAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED           GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            157678/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                           Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

[* 5]                                                       5 of 5