A property owner challenged a lien because the contractor did not apportion the work over two properties, thus exaggerating the lien amount and subjecting it to cancellation.
The First Department refused to cancel the lien, finding that the Lien Law did not require that multiple liens be filed for work under one contract. The court also decided that the claims of exaggeration was not “conclusively established,” without which dismissal could not be granted.
J.T. Magen & Co. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.