American Pride Construction, Inc. v. Russ Freeman Excavating, Inc.American Pride Construction, Inc. v. Russ Freeman Excavating, Inc.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cheeseman, J.), entered December 14, 1990 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5239, to remove a levy of respondent Sheriff of Albany County upon moneys of petitioner.
The primary question presented on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred in granting the application of petitioner to remove a Sheriff’s levy and directing payment of the moneys subject to the levy to petitioner. We answer in the affirmative. The judgment should therefore be reversed and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a trial pursuant to CPLR 5239.
Petitioner was the general contractor for a construction job for Kamco Supply Corporation (hereinafter Kamco) from March 1989 through June 1989. This was the only job petitioner worked on during that period. Respondent Russ Freeman Excavating, Inc. (hereinafter Freeman) performed excavation work on the job for an agreed price of $6,393.50 under a subcontract. Freeman was never paid for its work. All payments for the Kamco job were deposited into petitioner’s
Freeman obtained a default judgment against petitioner on November 22, 1989 in the sum of $7,164.21 in an effort to collect its unpaid bill. Execution was thereafter issued against petitioner’s sole Norstar Bank account and respondent Sheriff of Albany County levied on the balance in the account, $2,277. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5239 to determine rights to the levied property. Petitioner’s president and treasurer, Dwight Mathusa, testified at an examination before trial concerning the funds of petitioner. He was unable, however, to specify which of the funds received were used to pay bills for the Kamco job and which were used to pay for the other four jobs.
Petitioner alleged in further papers that the disputed funds were exempt from garnishment, claiming that they constitute the res of a mechanic’s lien trust fund for the benefit of other debtors under Lien Law § 70. Supreme Court, without a hearing, decided the matter on the papers submitted and, in its written decision, ruled that petitioner demonstrated that "the monies levied are trust funds under Lien Law §§70 [and] 72 for parties other than the judgment creditor” and granted the relief requested.
Pursuant to CPLR 5239, where, as here, there are disputed questions of fact, the court must order a separate trial to resolve them (see, Skyline Vineyards v Moravec,
Weiss, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur.