Opinion
April 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
On the appeal, this court inadvertently reversed portions of the order and judgment granting plaintiff summary judgment as against the defaulting defendant, Unanimity Construction, Inc., and the decretal paragraph of our memorandum decision is accordingly vacated and corrected to reflect that the order and judgment are modified only with respect to the appealing defendants, and otherwise affirmed. With respect to the motion for clarification as to the appealing defendants, this court stated that "there are triable issues of fact in this action for breach of contract, recovery for reasonable value of services and materials and foreclosure of a mechanic's lien against the property" and that "[a]mong other questions to be resolved" is whether plaintiff complied with the prerequisites set forth in section 8 Lien of the Lien Law (160 A.D.2d, supra, at 547). Accordingly, that issue is not the only one to be resolved at trial, and plaintiff may present evidence to establish the elements of all the causes of action presented in the complaint against the appealing defendants, including any based upon plaintiff's allegation of a direct contractual relationship with those defendants.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.