Opinion
December 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Saratoga County (Viscardi, J.).
There is no evidence that petitioners and respondent have any business or contractual relationship with respect to the property involved so as to render petitioners subject to the mechanic's lien filed by respondent. Furthermore, respondent is not a materialman as that term is defined in Lien Law § 2 (12). Due to this result, it is not necessary to decide whether respondent's cross motion to amend the mechanic's lien was properly denied.
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.