Real Estate & Contract Laws.

1. Short Answer
To: Nadine N. Parkes, Esq. – General Counsel
From: Kumar Pallav, Executive
Date: April 29, 2011
Re: In the matter of Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C. under Chapter 33
of the Consolidated Laws - Lien Law of the State of New York.
Brief Facts
Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C. is a professional limited liability
corporation with its principle place of business in Poughkeepsie, NY entered into contract to
provide engineering services on May 8, 2007. The fee for the service contract for the Item 1 and
2 is $145,000.00 & $80,000.00 respectively and amount $91,611.73 have been paid from May
24, 2007 till July 8, 2008 for the services rendered.
Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C., lienor, filed first notice under lien law on
or about May 10, 2010, in the amount of $19,425.82, with the clerk of the county of Dutchess
against the property owned by Orchard Hill Farms, LLC as described as map 3093 & 3039,
including certain lots annexed as exhibit “A” with the first notice pursuant to Lien Law of the
state of New York. The second notice of extension of mechanic’s lien was filed on April 14,
2011.

2. Research Issue:
1) Grounds of dismissal of Mechanic lien and damages due to breach of contact:
Short Answer:
There are two issues which we may present in the instant action. First, the claims a breach of
contract and damages for breach of contract. Second, the claim that the Morris Associates
Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C is willfully exaggerated the Mechanics' Lien in violation of NY
Lien Law § 39 and 39a.
Discussion:
1) The claims a breach of contract and damages for breach of contract :
Prima facie, we need to provide evidence that Morris Associates Engineering Consultants,
P.L.L.C breached the contract and subject to damages for breach of contract.
While the Mechanics' Lien needs to be proved void, we can still seek recovery for damages
under the contract.
In order to prove the breach of contract, we need to present the evidence as to non-performance
of the contact by the party and the amount the amounts set forth by plaintiff in its mechanic's lien
was willfully exaggerated. In some cases before the court on mechanic’s lien, the court properly
dismissed defendants' two counterclaims. With respect to the first counterclaim, defendants
failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that plaintiff breached the subcontract or that
plaintiff owes back charges to Allied for work that was not performed or that was improperly
performed (see generally MelStu Constr. Corp., 131 AD2d at 825; Sturdy Concrete Corp., 65
AD2d at 273). Defendants also failed to meet their burden of establishing, in support of their
second counterclaim, that the amounts set forth by plaintiff in its mechanic's lien were willfully
exaggerated (see Garrison v All Phase Structure Corp., 33 AD3d 661, 662).

3. In addition, it is also settled that for the material, services and labor which did not enter into the
construction of in question, the plaintiff had no lien. In Phillips v. Wright (7 N.Y. Super. Ct. [5
Sandf.] 342) it appeared that a part of the timber furnished was not used in the vessel, and that
some of it had been sold by the purchasers' assignees, and the probability was that some went for
the repair of other vessels. It was there contended on the part of the plaintiff that the non
application of the timber to the building of the vessel in question for which it was bought, was
not material; but the court took the opposite view, and held that to create the lien it is not
sufficient to prove that the materials were purchased with the declared purpose of being used in
the building of the vessel, but positive application to the intended use must be shown. The court
said: "The whole theory of a lien for labor and materials rests upon the basis, that such labor and
materials have entered into, and contributed to the production or equipment of the thing upon
which the lien is impressed. This imposes on the material man the necessity of seeing to it, that
his materials are applied to the purpose for which they are procured, if he design to rely upon a
lien given to him, by reason of such purpose. It may well be doubted whether a literal
interpretation of the words of the statute (2 R.S. 493), confer a lien, unless the articles furnished
are actually used in the building, &c., of the vessel against which it is claimed. Can it be said that
materials are furnished for, or towards building a ship, when no part of them enter into, or
become a part of, the ship? This doubt, and our conviction that the spirit of the act does not
warrant its extension to materials bought for, but never used in, the building of a designated
vessel, make it our duty to hold, that for the timber which did not enter into the construction of
the ship in question, the plaintiff had no lien." (See, In Matter of Froment, 110 App. Div. 72
(1905), 96 N.Y.S. 1061).
The same court in Hiscox v. Harbeck (15 N.Y. Super. Ct. [2 Bosw.] 506) considered the same
question, and the case of Phillips v. Wright (supra) was followed. Dealing with a similar act, Mr.
Justice SUTHERLAND, in Johnson v. Steamboat Sandusky (5 Wend. 510), said: "The supplies
contemplated by the act, must be such as enter into the construction or equipment of a vessel and
become a part of her." In Crooke v. Slack (20 Wend. 177) that case is followed. The Superior
Court cases are referred to and followed in Moores v. Lunt (1 Hun, 650), and the Phillips case is
cited with approval in Phoenix Iron Co. v. "Hopatcong" and "Musconetcong" (127 N.Y. 206,
211).

4. The principle contended is the law, and has been deemed such since the early cases in this State.
(See, also, Happy v. Mosher (48 N.Y. 313, 320). Therefore law is settled on this point in favor of
our case and we need to produce evidence in support of breach of contract.
2) The claim that the Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C is willfully
exaggerated the Mechanics' Lien in violation of NY Lien Law § 39 and 39a.
One case law supports a willfully exaggerated lien may be voided by the court and the person
filing such a notice of lien shall be liable in damages to the owner of the property. The stated
ground supports our case as Morris Associates Engineering Consultants; P.L.L.C. did not
perform the contact in toto. In Eickler v Pecora, (12 AD3d 635, 636 [2004]). Contrary to the
plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly credited the defendant's evidence and found
that the plaintiffs breached the subject contract (see Eickler v Pecora, supra). Moreover, the
Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action alleging willful exaggeration of a
mechanic's lien. Lien Law § 39a provides, in relevant part, that a willfully exaggerated lien may
be voided by the court and the person filing such a notice of lien shall be liable in damages to the
owner of the property. The burden is upon the opponent of the lien to show that the amounts set
forth were "intentionally and deliberately exaggerated" (Fidelity N.Y. v KensingtonJohnson
Corp., (234 AD2d 263 [1996]); see Perma Pave Contr. Corp. v Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club,
156 AD2d 550, 552 [1989]; see also Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp., (1 AD3d 580, 581
[2003]). see Garrison v. All Phase Structure Corp.,(821 N.Y.S.2d 898)
In other cases before the court on mechanic’s lien, the court properly dismissed defendants' two
counterclaims. With respect to the first counterclaim, defendants failed to present sufficient
evidence establishing that plaintiff breached the subcontract or that plaintiff owes back charges
to Allied for work that was not performed or that was improperly performed (see generally
MelStu Constr. Corp., 131 AD2d at 825; Sturdy Concrete Corp., 65 AD2d at 273). Defendants
also failed to meet their burden of establishing, in support of their second counterclaim, that the
amounts set forth by plaintiff in its mechanic's lien were willfully exaggerated (see Garrison v
All Phase Structure Corp., 33 AD3d 661, 662).

5. Therefore we can claims that the Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C willfully
exaggerated a Mechanics' Lien in violation of New York Lien Law § 39 which states in part "if
the court shall find that a lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount for which he claims a lien
as stated in his notice of lien, his lien shall be declared to be void and no recovery shall be had
thereon. The Appellate Division, Second Department in other cases has stated, "the burden is
upon the opponent of the lien to show that the amounts set forth were intentionally and
deliberately' exaggerated. Where there is any willful exaggeration in the amount of the lien as
filed, the entire lien is forfeited under section 39 of the Lien Law. The check given to Morris
Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C upon receipt, for the services clearly shows the
payment to the services rendered under the contract prior to May 7, 2008. Morris Associates
Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C claim of stopped payment of the $19,425 check, was not due
to the contract. This clear amplify the fact that Morris Associates Engineering Consultants,
P.L.L.C did an untrue representation of the fact and filed a mechanic’s lien intentionally beyond
the scope of the contract.
New York Lien Law § 39 requires that the exaggeration of the Mechanics' Lien be willful. The
courts have defined willful as meaning "intentional and deliberate." It is not enough to establish
that there are differences in the accounting of both parties. NY Lien Law sections 39 and 39a
were written with the intent to be read together. Upon reading both sections it is evident that they
have been written to protect against duplicitous wilful exaggeration of lien claims. These
sections "are intended to protect the owner or contractor from fictitious, groundless and
fraudulent liens by unscrupulous lienors and not to bring within the prohibition or penalties of
the statute honest difference of opinion as to the amount due or inaccuracy in the amount of the
lien so long as no exaggeration was intended." Therefore there must be a showing that the
exaggeration was in fact willful and show that the leinor knew the amount to be false yet filed a
mechanics' lien in an exaggerated amount.
In present case it can be proved by preponderance of the evidence that at the time the Morris
Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C filed the $19,425.82 mechanics' lien, it knew that it
was an exaggeration of the amount owed and not under a contract. An analysis of the stipulated
facts and the evidence provided by both parties lends itself to the conclusion that Morris
Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C acted willfully, intentionally and deliberately when
it filed the mechanics' lien in the amount of $19,425.82. When viewed in the light most

6. favorable, A may court finds that the mechanics' lien was, exaggerated for at least $19,425.82
because there was false claim on the part of Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C.
from last two years.
Therefore, the claim that the Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C is willfully
exaggerated the Mechanics' Lien in violation of NY Lien Law § 39 and 39a.
a) Damages awarded under New York Lien Law § 39a
New York Lien Law § 39a sets forth parameters by which Plaintiff/Buyer may be awarded
damages. Specifically, it states that Plaintiff/Buyer may receive "an amount equal to the
difference by which the amount claimed to be due or to become due as stated in the notice of lien
exceeded the amount actually due or to become due thereon . . . shall include the amount of any
premium for a bond given to obtain the discharge of the lien or the interest on any money
deposited for the purpose of discharging the lien, [and] reasonable attorneys fees for services in
securing the discharge of the lien". Generally The Plaintiff/Buyer is entitled under Lien Law §
39a to "the amount of any premium for a bond given to obtain the discharge of the lien."
b) Attorney Fees & Treble Damages
NY Lien Law § 39a allows for the court to award an amount of attorney's fees it deems
"reasonable attorneys fees for services in securing the discharge of the lien". However NY Lien
Law § 39a is silent on the issue of treble damages sought by the Plaintiff/Buyer. "The Mechanic's
Lien is a creature of statute existing neither in common law nor in equity in the absence of a
legislative act." Accordingly, the court will or will not impose treble damages against the
Defendant/Seller.

7. Therefore we need to provide sufficient evidence establishing that Morris Associates
Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C. breached the contract or that they owes back charges to Allied
for work that was not performed or that was improperly performed and the amounts set forth by
plaintiff in its mechanic's lien were willfully exaggerated.
Conclusion:
Therefore we need to contest the breach of contract on the part of Morris Associates Engineering
Consultants, P.L.L.C. and void the mechanic’s lien under the Lien Law § 39a.

8. Index: Law related to Lien
Relevant provisions of the Consolidated Laws - Lien Law of the State of New York
§ 3 Lien. Mechanic's lien on real property.
A contractor, subcontractor, laborer, material man, landscape gardener, nurseryman or person or
corporation selling fruit or ornamental trees, roses, shrubbery, vines and small fruits, who performs labor
or furnishes materials for the improvement of real property with the consent or at the request of the owner
thereof, or of his agent, contractor or subcontractor, and any trust fund to which benefits and wage
supplements are due or payable for the benefit of such laborers, shall have a lien for the principal and
interest, of the value, or the agreed price, of such labor, including benefits and wage supplements due or
payable for the benefit of any laborer, or materials upon the real property improved or to be improved and
upon such improvement, from the time of filing a notice of such lien as prescribed in this chapter. Where
the contract for an improvement is made with a husband or wife and the property belongs to the other or
both, the husband or wife contracting shall also be presumed to be the agent of the other, unless such
other having knowledge of the improvement shall, within ten days after learning of the contract give the
contractor written notice of his or her refusal to consent to the improvement. Within the meaning of the
provisions of this chapter, materials actually manufactured for but not delivered to the real property, shall
also be deemed to be materials furnished.

9. Analysis of the Invoices that supports the mechanic’s lien in the amount of $19,425.82
1) The amount is calculated and verified as $19,425.82 (The total of the all invoices).
2) As per the contract, this amount is claimed under Service Contract item no. 1, as of
$145,000.00.
3) The amount $91,611.73 had been paid from May 24, 2007 till July 8, 2008 for the
services rendered. We have no evidence to support that the amount we have paid is for
any specific services/labor rendered by the Morris Associates Engineering Consultants,
P.L.L.C. Because we can not distinguish/difference the work for which we have paid for
and the work mentioned in the contract. The reason is on the facsimile page no 3, we can
see that the dates mentioned for the professional services rendered from Oct. 12, 2008 to
Nov. 15, 2008 is done from 10/10/2007- 10/25/2007. It is noteworthy that we have paid
Last to Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, P.L.L.C. on July 8, 2008 (based on
our last check. Means we may have actually paid for the services in 2007. We also need
the proof that how and when we have authorized their services from May 17th, 2009 (p.2
of fax) & Nov. 25th, 2008 (p.2 of Fax). Because Nov.25th, 2008 invoice itself bear the
outstanding balance of 13,257.80 for all the work is done in 2007. We also need a proof
that actually the work is performed by the Morris Associates Engineering Consultants,
P.L.L.C. as they have done lot of printing, drafting and designing. We may also ask them
to show the invoices for consultation with different authorities. It is significant fact that
they have not done anything substantially and billed us for arranging meetings, follow
ups, consultation, writing letters etc.
The amount mentioned in the Item 1 of the contract is also divided to be paid on the
approval/stages set in the contract. (P.3 of the contract as $145,000). It shows that as a
retainer they can only claim $35,000 on stage 1 and upon first submission they can claim
$52,000 (stage 2). They can only claim rest of the amount upon the approval of Planning
Board. We also need to find that on which stage they were and making this claim.
However all amount claimed I invoice fall within the scope and duties under the contract
as verified as per the terms of contract.