Micheli Contracting Corp. v. Fairwood AssociatesMicheli Contracting Corp. v. Fairwood Associates
from that part of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 29, 1979 in Albany Cоunty, which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint and to cancel a notice of pendеncy. The underlying action is to foreclose three mechanic’s liens filed by plaintiffs. Micheli Contrаcting Corporation (Micheli) filed its liens on September 8, 1975. Fraim’s House of Carpets, Incorpоrated (Fraim’s) filed its lien on November 7, 1975. The summons, verified complaint and lis pendens in this action were filed in the Albаny County Clerk’s office on January 6, 1976. The mechanic’s liens and lis pendens filed in this action cover the entire рroperty known as the Fairwood Apartments Complex, which is divided into three parcels. Parcel No. 1 is owned by Fairwood Associates, a limited partnership, one of whose partners is Samuel M. Berley. Parcel No. 2 is owned by Samuel M. Berley, individually. Parcel No. 3 is owned by the Carleton Construction Corporation (Carleton). On January 7, 1976, Carleton was served by service on the Secretаry of State. Samuel Berley was served by substituted service on July 2, 1976, individually and as a limited partner of Fairwоod Associates. On January 11, 1977, Fairproj Corporation, a general partner of Fairwood Associates, was served by service upon the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs served 8 of the 15 named defendants within a 30-day period following their filing of the notice of pendency. Fairwood Associates seeks dismissal of the foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]) and cancellаtion of the lis pendens pursuant to CPLR 6514. Appellant contends that the notice of pendency is ineffective for failure to comply with CPLR 6512. The statute provides that "A notice of pendency filed before an action is commenced is effective only if, within thirty days after filing, a summons is served upon the dеfendant”. Appellant urges that this section requires service within 30 days on all multiple defendants. We disagree. Service upon one defendant is sufficient to preserve a notice of pendency in a multidefendant situation (Washington Hgts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, v 685A Hancock St. Corp., 41 Mise 2d 911; see, also, 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 6512.03; 13 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 87.44). Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of CPLR 6512 and, therefore, appellant is not entitled to a mandatory dismissal of the notice of pendency. Nor is it entitled to a discretionary dismissal. Thеre is no reason to conclude that plaintiff has not commenced or prosecuted the action in good faith. Appellant seeks also to dismiss the mechanic’s lien on the ground thаt plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable requirement of section 17 of the Lien Lаw which requires that an action be commenced to foreclose the lien within one yeаr of the filing of the notice of lien. The appellant contends that an action was