The following papers numbered 1 to 24 were read on these motions:

There are eight motions before the Court involving various mechanic's liens arising out of an enormous construction project in Rye. The first six motions were filed in Index No. 64814/2022, in which Camsan Inc. ("Camsan") is plaintiff. The first motion, filed by OPRA, seeks to discharge all of the liens filed against the project: the liens filed by Kaila Construction Corp. ("Kaila"), A&E Surfaces Co. ("A&E"), Camsan, Jack Loconsolo & Co. Inc. ("Loconsolo"), Hudson Meridian Construction Group ("Hudson Meridian"), Valex Enterprises Inc. ("Valex"), Essex Doors & Glass ("Essex"), PC Richard & Son ("PC Richard"), Fergusson Enterprises LLC ("Fergusson"), J. Suss Industries Inc. ("J Suss"), Nationwide Mechanical Inc. ("Nationwide"), GFC Lighting Wholesale Inc. ("GFC"), EP Construction LLC ("EP"), Nobilis Construction LLC ("Nobilis"), C&B Plumbing & Heating Inc. ("C&B"), Morano Landscape Garden Designs Ltd. ("Morano"), Ace Industries NY LLC d/b/a Ace Industries ("Ace"), Builder Services Group, Inc. d/b/a TruTeam Commercial Services ("TruTeam"), Colony Hardware Corp. ("Colony"), Countrywide Stone and Marble Inc. ("Countrywide"), Norberto Construction Inc. ("Norberto") and Bathxcessories Inc. ("Bath").

The second motion, filed by Camsan, seeks (1) an Order pursuant to New York Lien Law § 12-a(2) permitting it to amend its mechanic's liens, nunc pro tunc, so that Camsan's lien is asserted only as to the particular units still owned by OPRA, and the units that it owned at the time of the filing and service of Camsan's first mechanic's lien; (2) an Order compelling OPRA to [*2]disclose, with particularity, the lots that it still owns and the lots that it owned at the time of the filing and service of Camsan's first mechanic's lien; and (3) alternatively, directing OPRA to escrow any proceeds from the sale of any other units it owns at the subject premises until this consolidated action has been fully adjudicated. The third motion is filed by J Suss. It seeks (1) leave to serve and file an amended notice of mechanic's lien nunc pro tunc; (2) an Order deeming its answer and cross-claim in Action No. 8 amended to reflect said correction or amendment of lien; and (3) costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this matter. The fourth motion, filed by TruTeam, seeks to amend its lien. The fifth motion is filed by Valex. It seeks an order (1) allowing Valex to amend its lien, nunc pro tunc, so it is construed as to be filed against the specific units still owned by OPRA and to those that were still owned by OPRA at the time of Valex's filing and service of its lien; (2) compelling OPRA to disclose, with particularity, a description of the section, block and lot numbers of the units at the subject premises that it still owns; (3) compelling OPRA to disclose, with particularity, a description of the section, block, and lot numbers of the units at the subject premises that it owned at the time of the filing and service of the Valex lien; and (4) in the alternative, directing OPRA to place in escrow the proceeds from the sale of any other units it owns at the subject premises until the consolidated action has been fully adjudicated. The sixth motion, filed by Hudson Meridian,^[FN2] seeks an Order (1) granting Hudson Meridian leave to serve and file an amended notice of mechanic's lien nunc pro tunc; and (2) deeming Hudson Meridian's amended complaint in Action No. 8 to be amended to reflect its amended lien.

The seventh and eighth motions are filed in the Kaila action, Index No. 66378/2021. The seventh motion is filed by OPRA. It seeks to discharge all of the liens listed above. The eighth motion is filed by Hudson Meridian. It seeks the same relief as in the motion it filed in the Camsan action.

According to OPRA, the liens at issue "fall into one of three categories of facial deficiency; to wit, (i) liens filed against the former, now superseded, block and lot, which was replaced by new blocks and lots following the filing of the [*3]Condominium Declaration; (ii) liens filed against all of the blocks and lots of the building, despite the fact that prior to the lien filing unit sales occurred and the deeds were recorded with the Westchester County Clerk; and (iii) liens filed against less than all of the blocks and lots, but still including one or more lots that were sold, with deeds filed with the Westchester County Clerk, prior to the filing of the lien." OPRA claims that these are fatal defects that cannot be cured, because the lien filers failed "to properly identify the property subject to the lien." Not surprisingly, all of the parties to these actions which had filed liens, aside from the three that have defaulted (Norberto, Bath and Countrywide), argue — or piggyback on the other parties' arguments — that none of these defects are fatal. Given how similar the lienholders' issues are, the Court addresses them all together, rather than parse through each party's arguments individually.

The Court begins by examining the laches argument made by Camsan and others. They argue that the liens were filed well over a year (and in some instances, closer to two years) before OPRA asserted that the liens were invalid. Specifically, Camsan contends that "Had OPRA timely raised the alleged invalidity of Camsan Lien 1 in its Petition to Discharge by Undertaking (Index No. 6001912022), Camsan would have had sufficient time to correct [the liens] before the filing of the [actions]. Instead, OPRA filed the Undertaking, engaged in discovery and attended mediation with Camsan in May 2023, never once raising the alleged invalidity of the Camsan Liens. Given the passage of time to the detriment of Camsan, OPRA should be barred from invalidating the Camsan Liens by the doctrine of laches." In response, all that OPRA states is that there is "no merit or applicable statute or case law with respect to this argument." The Court disagrees. As the Third Department has explained, "Laches is defined as an equitable bar, based on a lengthy neglect or omission to assert a right and the resulting prejudice to an adverse party." Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Steve Jayz Auto. Inc., 197 AD3d 1407, 1409, 154 N.Y.S.3d 147, 150 (3d Dept. 2021). In that case, a party argued that "the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case as the claim is purely statutory and does not lie in equity." The Court disagreed, holding that the "action to enforce the lien is equitable, not legal, in nature," and that "It is well settled that where neglect in promptly asserting a claim for relief causes prejudice to one's adversary, such neglect operates as a bar to a remedy and is a basis for asserting the defense of laches." Id. Given the nature of this action, including the lengthy and involved [*4]attempts to resolve it over the years, the Court is deeply troubled by OPRA's cavalier attitude towards the liens.

This is particularly so in light of the remedial nature of the Lien Law. According to the Court of Appeals, "the statute, being remedial, should be read liberally to secure its beneficial interests and purposes. . . . [a court should not allow a] construction [which] subverts the beneficial interests and purpose of the Lien Law by permitting an owner of land to escape his responsibility to his contractors and suppliers by enabling him to retain lands free and clear of the mechanic's liens filed by them, solely because the owner conveys a portion of his lands to another." Niagara Venture v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc., 77 NY2d 175, 180 (1990).

"In determining the validity of a notice of lien, the requirements of the Lien Law are to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof. A substantial compliance with its several provisions shall be sufficient for the validity of a lien and to give jurisdiction to the courts to enforce the same." Matrix Staten Island Dev., LLC v. BKS-NY, LLC, 204 AD3d 1004, 1005, 167 N.Y.S.3d 530, 532 (2d Dept. 2022).

OPRA asserts that there has not been such "substantial compliance," so that there are no valid liens at all. The Second Department has explained (in a case arising out of an early stage of this project) that "Lien Law § 19(6) provides, in pertinent part, that a lien may be discharged as follows: "Where it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished and for which a lien is claimed, ... the owner or any other party in interest, may apply ... for an order summarily discharging of record the alleged lien." Thus, to be summarily discharged, the notice of lien must be invalid on its face." Old Post Rd. Assocs., LLC v. LRC Constr., LLC, 177 AD3d 658, 659, 112 N.Y.S.3d 254, 255 (2d Dept. 2019).

This is exactly OPRA's claim — that none of the liens listed above is valid on its face. However, being "invalid on its face" is a strict standard to meet. As the Second Department has explained, a court should not invalidate a lien based upon "a technical defect" because to do so "would do violence to Lien Law § 23, which provides that such law is to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof and that, substantial compliance with its several provisions shall be sufficient for the validity of a lien." E. Coast Mines & Materials Corp. v. Golf Course Properties Co., 228 AD2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 326, 328 (2d Dept. 1996) (where "the description [*5]included too much property, but nevertheless included and identified all the property on which the lien could properly be claimed, the defect was not fatal, as the lien would be limited and restricted only to that part against which it could properly be enforced."). In other words, courts should examine the Lien Law with a "liberal construction to protect the beneficial interests of lienors." Park Side Constr. Contractors, Inc. v. Bryan's Quality Plus, LLC, 156 AD3d 804, 806, 68 N.Y.S.3d 90, 93 (2d Dept. 2017). See also CAFS Mgmt. Corp. v. Q Realty & Dev., Inc., 143 AD3d 892, 893, 39 N.Y.S.3d 216, 217 (2d Dept. 2016).

OPRA contends even a liberal construction will not help the lien holders, because some of the liens were "filed against the former, superseded lot 7;" some "purport to encumber the entire Property, to wit, Lots 7-1 through 7-96, creat[ing] an improper "blanket lien;" some are blanket liens, even though the cover less than the entire property; some cover common elements of the property; and one "fails to give any block and lot description and simply states '120 Old Post Road.'"

The case of Mussen v. Franklin Square Assocs., V., LLC, 22 AD3d 1022, 1023, 803 N.Y.S.2d 252, 253—54 (3d Dept. 2005), relied on by many parties, is instructional, yet the parties disagree over the import of this case. In that case, the Third Department explained that the lien holder had filed a (very vague) lien against "property as located 'on Railroad Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga, NY.'" Id. The Court explained that while this was a "blanket lien against the entire property" that "inadequately describes the unsold units and does not encumber them, and is insufficient to encumber the common areas of the complex," it was not defective and should not be summarily discharged as invalid. The Court held that "although the lien is invalid as to the condominium building, it remains valid as to the two remaining parcels which were still owned by Franklin Square at the time the mechanic's lien was filed." OPRA interprets this sentence in its favor, asserting that "Mussen actually supports OPRA position that Camsan's, Valex, and J. Suss's Mechanic's Liens filed against the Property (a condominium) are blanket liens and should be cancelled and discharged." The Court disagrees. In Mussen, there were some parcels — as in these actions - that were "still owned by Franklin Square at the time the mechanic's lien was filed." The lien remained valid as to the parcels still owned by Franklin Square. Specifically, the Court held that the "description is not defective because it includes the condominium complex as well as the balance of defendants' property as it is limited and restricted only to that portion of the property against which it [*6]can be enforced." (Emphasis added). Similarly, here, at all times, OPRA still owned some units, even though some had been sold. The liens are invalid as to the sold units (and any common areas) but, as in Mussen, they are valid as to the unsold units.

The Mussen Court further explained that even though the lien did not even give a postal address, let alone block and lot numbers, "while the description is not perfect, it adequately identifies defendants' property in light of the liberal construction mandated by Lien Law § 23." Mussen v. Franklin Square Assocs., V., LLC, 22 AD3d 1022, 1023, 803 N.Y.S.2d 252, 253—54 (3d Dept. 2005). See also E. Coast Mines & Materials Corp. v. Golf Course Properties Co., 228 AD2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 326, 327—28 (2d Dept. 1996) ("As the description included too much property, but nevertheless included and identified all the property on which the lien could properly be claimed, the defect was not fatal, as the lien would be limited and restricted only to that part against which it could properly be enforced. Clearly, the instant lien was to cover the parcels of the golf course upon which services were rendered and materials were delivered by the plaintiff. To invalidate the lien based upon such a technical defect would do violence to Lien Law § 23, which provides that such law is to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof and that, substantial compliance with its several provisions shall be sufficient for the validity of a lien.") (Emphasis added).

In these actions, the Court finds that "affording the Lien Law its appropriately liberal construction to protect the beneficial interests of lienors, the misidentification of" the lots in the various liens is correctable. Manniello v. Ghadimi, 279 AD2d 460, 461, 719 N.Y.S.2d 100, 101—02 (2d Dept. 2001). This is particularly appropriate in light of the long time that lapsed while the parties were pursuing mediation, during which time the parties could have corrected their liens to reflect the sales that had occurred.

Accordingly, the Court (1) denies OPRA's motions in their entirety (except as set forth below); (2) directs OPRA to disclose, with particularity, the lots that it still owns and the lots that it owned at the time of the filing and service of all of the liens; (3) allows all lienholders to amend their liens to reflect the appropriate units, and deems any answers, complaints or other claims relying on such liens to be so amended; and (4) denies any requests for escrow, costs or fees. With respect to the three parties that have defaulted, Bath, Countrywide and Norberto, OPRA's motions are granted. These parties have not appeared, so there is no reason to allow them to maintain (or [*7]revise) their liens.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.^[FN3]