From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langston v. Triboro Contracting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 2007
44 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

In Langston, the plaintiffs claim was solely "that he is entitled to return of the money paid to defendant simply because the money, paid over time with checks, admittedly was never deposited into an escrow account in a bank, as required by Lien Law § 71-a (4), but instead was immediately cashed" (id. at 365).

Summary of this case from Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLC

Opinion

No. 1650.

October 9, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 15, 2007, which, in an action to recover money paid pursuant to a home improvement contract, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff home owner's motion for partial summary judgment on his causes of action against defendant contractor for diversion of Lien Law article 3-A trust funds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Lieber Lieber, LLP, New York (Barbie D. Lieber of counsel), and Schaeffer Krongold LLP, New York (Elliot L. Schaeffer of counsel), for appellant.

Rivelis, Pawa Blum, LLP, New York (Howard Blum of counsel), for Triboro Contracting, Inc. and Paul Gambino, respondents.

Greenblatt Lesser LLP, New York (Robert I. Lesser of counsel), for Sabina Ryman, respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mar low, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.


We reject plaintiffs argument that he is entitled to return of the money paid to defendant simply because the money, paid over time with checks, admittedly was never deposited into an escrow account in a bank, as required by Lien Law § 71-a (4), but instead was immediately cashed. The primary purpose of Lien Law article 3-A is to ensure that those who have expended labor and materials to improve real property at the direction of an owner or a general contractor receive payment for the work actually performed ( Aspro Mech. Contr. v Fleet Bank, 1 NY3d 324, 328). Thus, the issue, in deciding whether there has been a diversion of trust funds, is not whether the funds have been deposited in a bank, but whether the funds have actually been used to pay subcontractors, suppliers and laborers ( cf. 1 NY3d at 329).


Summaries of

Langston v. Triboro Contracting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 2007
44 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In Langston, the plaintiffs claim was solely "that he is entitled to return of the money paid to defendant simply because the money, paid over time with checks, admittedly was never deposited into an escrow account in a bank, as required by Lien Law § 71-a (4), but instead was immediately cashed" (id. at 365).

Summary of this case from Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLC
Case details for

Langston v. Triboro Contracting

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY LANGSTON, Appellant, v. TRIBORO CONTRACTING, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 9, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7473
843 N.Y.S.2d 49

Citing Cases

Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLC

In support of their position that the Lien Law is not applicable to the matter before the Court, Defendants…

Frampton v. Axiom Constr. Corp.

However, as in this case., where there are. no subcontractors then the plaintiff cannot move alleging a trust…