Opinion
8754 Index 155915/17
03-21-2019
In re MR. WHITE, L.L.C., Petitioner–Respondent, v. PINK SHIRT CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent–Appellant.
White and Williams LLP, New York (Shruti Panchavati and Nicole A. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. Ronald Francis, New York, for respondent.
White and Williams LLP, New York (Shruti Panchavati and Nicole A. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant.
Ronald Francis, New York, for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
It was a provident exercise of the court's discretion to vacate and cancel respondent's mechanic's lien, because respondent failed to commence an action to enforce the lien, as prescribed by Lien Law § 59, the section under which this proceeding was commenced. Validity of the lien, and any dispute as to whether respondent completed the work required by the contract, were to be established at trial of that foreclosure action, which respondent concedes it never commenced (see S A F La Sala Corp. v. S & H 88th St. Assoc., 138 A.D.2d 241, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 206 [1st Dept. 1988] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.