Court Opinion

ID: 9958751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:49.051196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:48.753266
License: Public Domain

Matter of Your Vet 1, LLC v Eastman, Cooke &
                      Assoc., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31044(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157681/2023
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
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. 157681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                           NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                              PART                              56M
                                                                                    Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          157681/2023
           In the Matter of
                                                                                                MOTION DATE         11/08/2023
           YOUR VET 1, LLC,
                                                                                                MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                       Petitioner,

                                               -v-
                                                                                                  DECISION, ORDER, AND
           EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC,                                                           JUDGMENT

                                                       Respondent.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
          9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
          were read on this motion to/for                                                      MECHANICS LIEN                     .

                    In this proceeding pursuant to Lien Law §§ 39 and 39, the petitioner, Your Vet 1, LLC,

          seeks to vacate and cancel a mechanic’s lien. The respondent, general contractor Eastman,

          Cooke & Associates, LLC, opposes the petition. The petition is denied and the proceeding is

          dismissed.

                    On June 14, 2023, the respondent filed a notice of mechanic’s lien in the face amount of

          $6,350.46 against real property designated as Block 1139, Lot 1, on the tax map of the Borough

          of Manhattan, City of New York, located at 171 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York. In

          that notice, the respondent alleged that it had furnished materials to the petitioner, consisting of

          a lead-lined X-ray door and related hardware for the petitioner’s veterinary office, that the

          respondent furnished that door on September 22, 2022, and that installation of the door was

          completed on November 18, 2022. On July 13, 2023, the petitioner, in accordance with Lien

          Law § 38, served the respondent with a demand for a written, itemized statement “setting forth

          the items of labor or materials, or both, and the value thereof,” that formed the basis for the lien.

          The demand recited that:

           157681/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                                         Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 001

          [* 1]
                                                                         1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                          “[t]he Itemized Statement so demanded shall also contain the terms of the
                          alleged contract under which said items were performed or furnished, and set
                          forth an itemization of any claims for extra work, delay damages, overhead
                          and/or profit. The statement shall also provide a description of and the quantity
                          and cost of the various kinds of material provided and details as to the number of
                          hours and dates of labor time spent and the applicable rates of labor charges.”

          The demand letter also demanded that the “verified itemized statement must be provided by you

          within five (5) days of receipt of this Demand, or the undersigned will proceed according to Lien

          Law Section 38.” The respondent and its attorney received the demand on July 17, 2023.

          When the respondent did not serve the petitioner with an itemized statement in response to the

          demand within that five-day period, the petitioner dispatched a letter to the respondent and its

          attorney, dated July 26, 2023, notifying them that it was commencing this proceeding to vacate

          the lien. The petitioner commenced this proceeding on August 1, 2023.

                   The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that, although it did not serve the itemized

          statement within the five days demanded in the July 13, 2023 demand letter, it ultimately served

          the itemized statement on August 21, 2023 and that, in any event, the instant petition to vacate

          the lien is premature because the petitioner failed to satisfy a condition precedent to the

          proceeding, which requires that it first seek and obtain an order compelling them to provide such

          an itemized statement.

                   Lien Law § 38 provides, in relevant part, that:

                          “[i]f the lienor shall fail to comply with such a demand [to provide an itemized
                          statement to the owner or contractor] within five days after the same shall have
                          been made by the owner or contractor, or if the lienor delivers an insufficient
                          statement, the person aggrieved may petition the supreme court of this state or
                          any justice thereof, . . . for an order directing the lienor within a time specified in
                          the order to deliver to the petitioner the statement required by this section. Two
                          days’ notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the lienor . . .The
                          court or a justice or judge thereof shall hear the parties and upon being satisfied
                          that the lienor has failed, neglected or refused to comply with the requirements of
                          this section shall have an appropriate order directing such compliance. In case
                          the lienor fails to comply with the order so made within the time specified, then
                          upon five days’ notice to the lienor, served in the manner provided by law for the
                          personal service of a summons, the court or a justice . . . thereof may make an
                          order cancelling the lien

           157681/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                        Page 2 of 4
           Motion No. 001

           [* 2]
                                                         2 of 4
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          (emphasis added). “[A] petition to compel production of a[n] itemized statement is a prerequisite

          to a proceeding to cancel a mechanic’s lien” (Strongback Corp. v N.E.D. Cambridge Ave. Dev.

          Corp., 25 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2006]; see Matter of Lawrence Arms, Inc., 37 Misc 2d 396,

          397 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1962]). Strongback was an action in which a general contractor

          commenced an action to foreclose on its lien, and the owner counterclaimed to vacate the lien

          on the ground that the contractor willfully exaggerated the value of its lien (see Lien Law § 39).

          Although the Court recognized and recited this general rule, it concluded that, inasmuch as the

          owner was entitled to interpose that counterclaim in response to the foreclosure action, it was

          not obligated to satisfy the otherwise applicable prerequisite. The instant matter, however, was

          commenced as a special proceeding to vacate a lien and, hence, the exception to the

          prerequisite recognized in a foreclosure action is inapplicable.

                   The court notes that, in a related proceeding, the court (Edwards, J.), granted an almost

          identical petition submitted by the petitioner, in which it sought to vacate a $61,456.64

          mechanic’s lien filed by the respondent for labor that it had allegedly furnished in connection

          with the lead-lined x-ray door (see Matter of Your Vet 1, LLC v Eastman, Cooke & Assocs, LLC,

         2023 NY Slip Op 34397[U], 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 23119 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Dec. 14, 2023]).

         In that case, the court vacated the mechanic’s lien “without prejudice.” Crucially, that court

         found that the same respondent “admitted that no labor was provided by Respondent at the

         project. Additionally, the dates on the lien and the dates in the supporting documents conflict

         with each other” (id., 2023 NY Slip Op 34397[U], *4, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 23119, *5). Thus, it

         accepted the petitioner’s claim that the lien for labor had to have been willfully exaggerated.

         Conversely, the instant proceeding involves a lien for furnishing materials only, and the

         petitioner failed to establish that the $6,350.46 that the respondent charged it for the lead-line x-

         ray door itself was willfully exaggerated.

                   Moreover, as opposed to the related proceeding, the respondent’s late response to the

         demand for an itemized statement set forth the terms of the relevant contract, and attached a
           157681/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                     Page 3 of 4
           Motion No. 001

           [* 3]
                                                         3 of 4
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          November 22, 2022 invoice that expressly indicated that the price of the “Door/Frames/

          Hardware” that had been purchased by the respondent from Accurate Door was $4,200.00, and

          that the respondent’s charge for “General Conditions” in procuring the door, frames, and

          hardware was $1,629.45, which, when an agreed-upon 5% fee and a 3.75% insurance fee were

          added, came to $6,350.46. Even if this statement somehow were deemed to be insufficient

          because it “failed to include the terms of a contract or agreement supporting its claims that

          Petitioner consented to, approved, or authorized” (id., 2023 NY Slip Op 34397[U], *4, 2023 NY

          Misc LEXIS 23119, *5-6), this court declines to follow the determination made in the related

          proceeding, as the petitioner failed to satisfy a condition precedent to the commencement of this

          proceeding, and none of the exceptions to the applicability of that prerequisite are present here.

                    Accordingly, it is,

                    ORDERED that the petition is denied; and it is,

                    ADJUDGED that the proceeding is dismissed.

                    This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgment of the court.

                    3/29/2024                                                               $SIG$
                      DATE                                                          JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

           CHECK ONE:                     X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                     □
                                              GRANTED          X   DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

           APPLICATION:                       SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

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

           157681/2023 YOUR VET 1, LLC vs. EASTMAN, COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC                           Page 4 of 4
           Motion No. 001

            [* 4]
                                                                4 of 4