Case Reflection Vol. 3 (6/29/25):
Leveraging New York Lien Law Article 17 to Dismiss a Mechanic’s Lien Forclosure
By: Israel A. Katz, Partner, Litigation Department
In commercial litigation, capitalizing on oversights made by an opponent can dictate the difference between protracted, costly litigation and a swift dismissal on procedural grounds. This is particularly true in the context of construction litigation and the enforcement of mechanic’s liens.
THE FACTS: During a fourteen-million-dollar ground-up construction project for a Manhattan townhouse, our client, a property owner, was embroiled in litigation with their general contractor. As part of this dispute, a subcontractor filed an action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien against our client’s property, accompanied by a notice of pendency recorded in October 2020. The subcontractor claimed unpaid amounts for work performed, which our client asserted resulted from the general contractor’s diversion of construction funds or failure to pay the subcontractor. Under New York Lien Law Article 17, a notice of pendency in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action expires after three years unless extended by court order. Without such an extension, the lien becomes a nullity, incapable of revival. In this case, the subcontractor failed to renew the notice of pendency by the October 2023 deadline, leaving the lien vulnerable.
THE STRATEGY: Rather than engaging in protracted discovery over the underlying payment disputes, we recognized that the lien would become unenforceable upon the expiration of the notice of pendency. We closely monitored the October 2023 deadline and, once it passed without renewal, promptly moved to dismiss the foreclosure action with prejudice and sought an order directing the County Clerk to cancel the lien from the property records. This approach leveraged the strict procedural requirements of Lien Law Article 17 to avoid litigating the merits of the subcontractor’s claim.
THE OUTCOME: The court granted our motion in its entirety, dismissing the subcontractor’s foreclosure action with prejudice and ordering the County Clerk to remove the mechanic’s lien from the property records. The ruling hinged on the subcontractor’s failure to extend the notice of pendency, rendering the lien a nullity under Lien Law Article 17. This dismissal on procedural grounds cleared our client’s title and saved the client from further litigation costs and delays.
THE TAKEAWAY: The three-year notice of pendency requirement under New York Lien Law Article 17 is a trap for the unwary, as practitioners often fail to track deadlines that are years away. Sometimes, the difference between victory for a client and a loss is which side’s attorney is paying attention to the details and statutory deadlines. By vigilantly monitoring the expiration deadline of the notice pendency and pouncing on the subcontractor’s counsel’s oversight, we turned their mistake into a complete victory for our client saving them from the cost and hassle of a protracted lien foreclosure litigation.
Israel A. Katz is a Partner in the Firm’s Litigation Department concentrating in complex commercial real estate litigation matters, including construction litigation discussed in this article. Israel can be reached at 212-867-4466 ext.824 (ikatz@bbgllp.com).
