Opinion
April 8, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 2, 2007, Which denied petitioner owner's application pursuant to Lien Law § 19 (6) to summarily discharge respondent construction manager's mechanic's lien, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Before: Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
The court properly refused to consider respondent's itemized statement demanded by petitioner pursuant to Lien Law § 38, and correctly dismissed the petition on the ground that the subject mechanic's lien is facially valid. In the absence of a defect on the face of the notice of lien, the disputes concerning whether the insurance allegedly procured by respondent is a lienable item, and whether other items constituting the lien have been paid, must await trial of the foreclosure action ( see Pontos Renovation v Kitano Arms Corp., 204 AD2d 87).