Opinion
September 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.).
Respondent did not renew its mechanic's lien against the premises, which expired by operation of law on or about July 6, 1989. Rather, respondent relies on a notice of pendency filed by a second creditor as a named defendant in an action commenced by a third creditor. The respondent was not served with papers in this additional action, nor is it even named specifically as a party, but claims to be one of ten "John Doe" parties named as fictitious defendants in the third creditor's action.
Lien Law § 17 provides for the automatic extension of a lienor who is a party to a notice of pendency filed by another. Relying on Martin v. de Coppet ( 64 Misc. 385) the IAS Court held that a creditor is not a party to a notice of pendency within the meaning of Lien Law § 17 unless it has been served with process in that action (see also, Furze v. City of New York, 154 N.Y.S 912). This remains a valid rule of law and the IAS Court properly relied on it.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.