MATTER OF BRALUS CORPORATION v. BERGER, 307 N.Y. 626 (1954)

120 N.E.2d 829

In the Matter of BRALUS CORPORATION et al., Appellants, against IRVIN BERGER, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued April 6, 1954
Decided May 20, 1954

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, C.A. JOHNSON, J.

Page 627

William Brafman and Joseph Goldman for appellants.

Richard Steel and Martin A. Jacobs for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Respondent’s mechanic’s lien for making “drawings of preliminary plans” and allied architectural services which never became embodied in an erected structure, should not summarily be dismissed on motion under subdivision (6) of section 19 of the Lien Law, upon the ground that they are not final plans. Mechanic’s liens may be filed for materials furnished or labor performed “for the improvement of real property” (Lien Law, § 3). Subdivision 4 of section 2, as amended by chapter 608 of the Laws of 1934, defines “improvement” as including “the drawing by any architect or engineer or surveyor, of any plans or specifications or survey, which are prepared for or used in connection with such improvement”. Nothing contained in this language disallows architects’ plans which are preliminary in nature, provided that they have progressed to a point where they can be characterized as “plans” within the meaning of that term as it is used in the building trades.

Page 628

More than mere rough sketches is required in order to render lienable an architect’s charges, but the term “preliminary plans” includes drawings which are sufficiently formal to be called plans, but which have been prepared to assist the owner in deciding whether he wants to have a building constructed according to such a design, or which leave some ultimate details to be selected and added later. What the present drawings are and whether they constitute plans should be decided after a trial, and not in a summary proceeding instituted under subdivision (6) of section 19 of the Lien Law.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

LEWIS, Ch. J., CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL and VAN VOORHIS, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CORDAS v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941)

27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…

2 weeks ago

WOOD v. DUFF-GORDON, Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88 (1917)

222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…

3 weeks ago

RAHABI v. MORRISON, 81 A.D.2d 434

81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…

4 weeks ago

MATTER OF SCHLINGER, 48 Misc.2d 345 (1965)

48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…

4 weeks ago

BARTOLONE v. JECKOVICH, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 (1984).

103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…

4 weeks ago

Matter of C.C. v D.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 (Sept. 18, 2025)

Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…

3 months ago