King Steel Iron Work Corp. v SDS Leonard, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
King Steel Iron Work Corp. v SDS Leonard, LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 32579(U) December 6, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 512101/21 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2021 04:00 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 INDEX NO. 512101/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 ----- - -- ----- ------ --------------- --~ KH:iG STEEL IRON WORK CORP. , Plaintiff, Index No~ 512101/21 - against - Sos LEONARD, LLC, 232 SMITH STREET LLC, ABC COMPANIES 1-100 (fictitious entities), & JOHN DOES 1-100 (fictitious persons), Defendants, - --. - .-------·-. . .--. Decision and order December 6; 2021 ---.-·--·- . ---.-------·----}{ PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN The defendant has moved seeking to dismiss the seventeenth affirmative defense and second counterclaim alleging slander of. title. The de.fendants oppose the motion. by the parties and arguments held. Papers were submitted After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination. The plaintiff, a contractor, was hired by defendant SDS Leonard to perform construction work at 232 Smith Street in Kings County. On May 6, 2021 the plaintiff filed a Mechanic's Lien al:L.eging they a]:'.e owed $429,693'. 59 for work performed that remains unpaid; The plaintiff instituted the instant lawsuit alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of the Lien Law. The ctefendarits answered- and se.rved affirmative defen$es and .Goun.tercl.2i.ims. Specifically, :the defendants asserted the plaintiff has exaggerated the amount owed and that"the wrongful filing of the mechanic's lien casts a cloud upon Defenda:nts' title. to or in.terest in realty" {see, .Answer., SI. 73) and asserted a claim of 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2021 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 512101/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2021 slander of title. The plaintiff has now·moved ;3eeking to dismiss that c:ounterclaim on the grounds it fails to allege any sµch cause of action. Conelusions of Law Where the material facts at issue in a case are in dispute summary judgment cannot be granted (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 'NYS2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). Generally, it is for the jury, the trier of fact to determine the legal. cause of any injury (Aronson v. Horace Mann-Barnard School, 224 AD2d 249, 637 NYS2d 410 [ pt Dept., 1996]) . Hc:iwever, where only one conclusion may be drawn from the facts then the question of legal cause may be decided by the trial court as a matter of law (Derdiarian tr.Felix Contracting Inc., 51 NY2d 308, 434 NYS2d 166 [1980]). There are no cases in New York that expressly permit asserting a cause of action for slander of title based upon the filing of an exaggerated Mechanic's Lien. The defendants cite two cases supporting the viability of such a cause of action. The first, LLC, Cnb Constractor Corp., v. Gs Utah Wind Acquisition (2020 NY Misc. LEXIS 13808 [Sµpreme Court Westchester Co.unty 2020]) does deal with seeking tq dismiss exaggerated liens, how:ever, i t does not mention the claim of slander of title at all. The second, F.lowcon Inc., v. Andiva LLC, (20?1 i;JY .Misc. LEXIS. 39.5 [Supreme Court New York County 2021] did note. a party asserted slander of title as a potential caus.e of upon a ex?gge rateci 1 ien ~ action based Ho¼lever, the court did n.ot address the 2 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2021 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 512101/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2021 ·merits· of that cau-qe o.f actipp at :all. Indee.<:l., the issues in that case were wh.ether the partie:-3 were bound by an arbi tratio:h .claus·e.. ~ Re·cently, on Decemb:e·r 2, 2-021, .:after thls m:otio"n was submitted,, the Appellate Divisiohreve :rsed the low~r court decision and held all matter:s were subject to a·rbitration (Flowcon Inc.·. y,. A.ndiva LLC., ~AD3d_, NYS3d [.l5t Dept.,· 202.1]). Thus, that case cannot support the assert-ion that a slander of title claim is proper w.hen cha1len.ging a:n irn.p·roper lien. Moreove.I;", cases that have actually examined the iss'ue have uniformly rejected the idea that a slander of title claim is Tri prope·r when challenging c;in improp~-r and e.xagge,ratep. lien. Seidman v. Industrial Re:cVclinq Properties Inc .. , 8 3 AD.3d 1040, 922 NYS2d 451 [2d Dept., 2011Jt the court held that no such cause of actiO.Il e.xists. in New .York for a claim for a.lander of title based upon the filing of a notice of pendency . 1 Neptune· Estates, LLC, v .. Big ·eoll & Again, in Son -Cfonst.ructio.n LLC, 39 MiscJd :64Q, .961 NYS2d. :.89·6 [Supreme. Court Kings County 2013:J the <::::ourt specifically stated that slander of title is -cause .of act.i:on challenging ,a Mecl"J;anic' not a s. Lien; .b.ecause valid a Mechani.i::'$ Lien does not cast any doubt upon the validity of an owner's titie. It is true thi;i.t case listed s~ven causes of action that one coµld pu~sue upon a f:a.lse Mechanic's Lien. The In other states a party may pursue.a slander of title claim based on the malicious filing of aNotice of.Pendency, See, .Carrozzav. Voccolg,90 A3cj. 142 [Supreme CourtofRhode Island ·1 2014]; .3 3 of 4-------······ ·······-······ ···----··•--· ···· ·--··-------- ------------ ------------ -·· .•... .,......·-······-··········.. [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2021 04:00 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 INDEX NO. 512101/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2021 court noted that "a number of common law remedies are available to a prop·erty owner where damages result from the wilful exaggeration of a lien. For example, a lien.or that wilfully exaggerated a lien may he liable for: ' ( 1) fraud; disparagement (sometimes called slander of title); (2) (3) interf·erence with contract (to extent such lien interferes with existing contracts); (4) interference with prospective business advantage (to extent such lien interferes with potential deals); ( 5) extortion; of ·process'" (6) (id) • malicious prosecution; and ( 7) malicious abuse The re-fe ren·ce to di spa ragemen t "sometimes called slander of title'' is a different tort not implicated in this case. Therefore, since slander of title cannot be pursued based upon- the facts 'of this case the motion seeking summary judgement dismissing that counterclaim and affirmative defense is granted. ,_,...-- So ordered. ENTER: DATED: December 6, 2021 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. JSC 4 4 of 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.