Opinion
April 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant property owner sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action to foreclose a mechanic's lien on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the parties. However, it is well settled that "a material[person] or subcontractor is not required to be in contractual privity with the property owner in order to foreclose a mechanic's lien" (Regal Lbr. Co. v Buck, 157 Misc.2d 376, 378; see also, Rainbow Elec. Co. v Bloom, 132 A.D.2d 539; Hartman v Travis, 81 A.D.2d 692). Accordingly, since the plaintiff's action sought only the foreclosure of its lien, and did not assert any cause of action based upon a contractual relationship between the parties, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.