150 Misc. 2d 971 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1991
OPINION OF THE COURT
Is a construction financing consultant entitled to file a mechanic’s lien under Lien Law § 3 for fees incurred in connection with obtaining a construction loan at the request of a landowner for purposes of constructing improvements upon the real property of the landowner? The court answers the question in the negative.
In 1989, the defendant contacted plaintiff Atkinson for the purpose of retaining his construction financing consulting
The plaintiffs sued for their fees after the defendant refused to pay them. Plaintiffs take the position that they are laborers within the intent of Lien Law § 2 (11). The plaintiffs allege that because they are laborers as defined by the Lien Law they are entitled to a lien under Lien Law § 3. The court holds to the contrary.
The court, moreover, does not view the plaintiffs as improving the real property in question. Lien Law § 2 (4) has been expanded over the years to include not only the normal type of labor and materials that go into building improvements, but also now allows architects to have a lien for their drawings and specifications and real estate brokers to have a lien for certain leases obtained on commercial property. The court notes that no specific amendment has been made to the Lien Law to allow financial consultants who obtain financing to have a lien.