Matter of 40-44 24th St., LLC v Ruggiero & Assoc., Ltd.

Aug 5, 2026
2024-08919
Versions:2026 NY Slip Op 04851

In the Matter of 40-44 24th Street, LLC, petitioner- respondent,

v

Ruggiero & Associates, Ltd., appellant, et al., respondents.

Decided on August 5, 2026

Gil V. Perez, New York, NY, for appellant.

Arthur J. Semetis, P.C., New York, NY (Michael J. McDermott and Constantine Tzifas of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law §§ 17 and 19(2), inter alia, to discharge a mechanic‘s lien, Ruggiero & Associates, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered May 2, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the petition which was pursuant to Lien Law §§ 17 and 19(2) to discharge the mechanic‘s lien filed by Ruggiero & Associates, Ltd.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Lien Law §§ 17 and 19(2), inter alia, to discharge a mechanic‘s lien filed by Ruggiero & Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter Ruggiero), against certain real property that had been previously owned by the petitioner. In an order entered May 2, 2024, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the petition. Ruggiero appeals.

“Pursuant to Lien Law § 17, a mechanic‘s lien expires one year after filing unless an extension is filed with the County Clerk or an action is commenced to foreclose the lien and a notice of pendency is filed within that time period” (Christopulos v Christopulos, 207 AD3d 698, 698; see Aztec Window & Door Mfg., Inc. v 71 Vil. Rd., LLC, 60 AD3d 795, 796). “In the event neither of these conditions is accomplished within the statutory period, nor is a further extension of the lien obtained by order of the court, the lien automatically expires by operation of law, becoming a nullity and requiring its discharge” (Aztec Window & Door Mfg., Inc. v 71 Vil. Rd., LLC, 60 AD3d at 796; see Matter of Cook v Carmen S. Pariso, Inc., 287 AD2d 208, 211).

Here, neither of the conditions was accomplished within one year after the mechanic‘s lien was filed and no extension of the mechanic‘s lien was obtained from the Supreme Court. Therefore, the court properly granted that branch of the petition which was pursuant to Lien Law §§ 17 and 19(2) to discharge the mechanic‘s lien filed by Ruggiero, as the mechanic‘s lien automatically expired by operation of law (see Christopulos v Christopulos, 207 AD3d at 699; Aztec Window & Door Mfg., Inc. v 71 Vil. Rd., LLC, 60 AD3d at 796; Matter of Cake Stylists v Town & Country Plumbing & Heating Co., 197 AD2d 687, 687).

Ruggiero‘s remaining contentions are without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court