N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Lien / ARTICLE Mechanics' Liens
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Lien Law § 17 (2026)

Duration of lien

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 17. Duration of lien. No lien specified in this article shall be a
lien for a longer period than one year after the notice of lien has been
filed, unless within that time an action is commenced to foreclose the
lien, and a notice of the pendency of such action, whether in a court of
record or in a court not of record, is filed with the county clerk of
the county in which the notice of lien is filed, containing the names of
the parties to the action, the object of the action, a brief description
of the real property affected thereby, and the time of filing the notice
of lien; or unless an extension to such lien, except for a lien on real
property improved or to be improved with a single family dwelling, is
filed with the county clerk of the county in which the notice of lien is
filed within one year from the filing of the original notice of lien,
continuing such lien and such lien shall be redocketed as of the date of
filing such extension. Such extension shall contain the names of the
lienor and the owner of the real property against whose interest therein
such lien is claimed, a brief description of the real property affected
by such lien, the amount of such lien, and the date of filing the notice
of lien. No lien shall be continued by such extension for more than one
year from the filing thereof. In the event an action is not commenced to
foreclose the lien within such extended period, such lien shall be
extinguished unless an order be granted by a court of record or a judge
or justice thereof, continuing such lien, and such lien shall be
redocketed as of the date of granting such order and a statement made
that such lien is continued by virtue of such order. A lien on real
property improved or to be improved with a single family dwelling may
only be extended by an order of a court of record, or a judge or justice
thereof. No lien shall be continued by court order for more than one
year from the granting thereof, but a new order and entry may be made in
each of two successive years. If a lienor is made a party defendant in
an action to enforce another lien, and the plaintiff or such defendant
has filed a notice of the pendency of the action within the time
prescribed in this section, the lien of such defendant is thereby
continued. Such action shall be deemed an action to enforce the lien of
such defendant lienor. The failure to file a notice of pendency of
action shall not abate the action as to any person liable for the
payment of the debt specified in the notice of lien, and the action may
be prosecuted to judgment against such person. The provisions of this
section in regard to continuing liens shall apply to liens discharged by
deposit or by order on the filing of an undertaking. Where a lien is
discharged by deposit or by order, a notice of pendency of action shall
not be filed.
  A lien, the duration of which has been extended by the filing of a
notice of the pendency of an action as above provided, shall
nevertheless terminate as a lien after such notice has been canceled as
provided in section sixty-five hundred fourteen of the civil practice
law and rules or has ceased to be effective as constructive notice as
provided in section sixty-five hundred thirteen of the civil practice
law and rules.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Cook v. Carmen S. Pariso, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. Carmen S. Pariso, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 18× “On this appeal by petitioners from an order denying their petition seeking to cancel and discharge three mechanics’ liens filed against their property by respondents, the issue is whether the liens have lapsed by operation of law as a result of respondents’ failure to obtain…”
MCK Bldg. Assocs., Inc. v. St. Lawrence Univ., 5 A.D.3d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 5× “ceased to be effective as constructive notice as provided in [CPLR 6513]” (Lien Law § 17). We note that the rule contained in CPLR 6513—that a notice of pendency shall be effective for a period of three years and an extension must be requested before the expiration of the…”
Pino v. Harnischfeger, 42 A.D.3d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs thereafter moved for an order pursuant to Lien Law §§17 and 19 cancelling and *982 discharging the mechanic’s lien filed by DDS.”
Bianchi Constr. Corp. v. D'Egidio, 165 Misc. 2d 973 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 7× “Lien Law § 17 provides in pertinent part that: "No lien * * * shall be a lien for * * * [more] than one year * * * unless within that time an action is commenced to foreclose the lien, and a notice of the pendency of such action * * * is filed * * * or unless an extension to…”
Lindt & Sprungli USA, Inc. v. PR Painting Corp., 292 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 3× “The duration of a mechanic’s lien is limited to one year after a notice of lien is filed unless an action to foreclose the lien is commenced within that time and a notice of pendency is filed or an extension of the lien has been obtained (see Lien Law § 17). Where a lienor is…”
M & A Constr. Corp. v. McTague, 21 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “First, as plaintiff did not institute the action to foreclose the mechanic’s lien within one year and did not submit proof that it had been extended pursuant to court order, the validity of the lien was not established as a matter of law and Supreme Court correctly dismissed…”
Matter of Pizzarotti, LLC v. New York Concrete Washout Sys., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06182 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “Respondent maintains that it was not required to file a notice of pendency because it commenced its foreclosure action within one year of its filing of the mechanic's lien. However, under the Lien Law, respondent was required to file with its action a notice of pendency, or an…”
Gallo Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Peccolo, 281 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Turning next to plaintiffs contention that it was error for Supreme Court to cancel the notice of pendency and dismiss the underlying lien foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 6514, we note initially that a mechanic’s lien expires as a matter of law one year after filing unless,…”
Kraft v. Fisk Assocs. (In Re Millerlee Corp.), 70 B.R. 780 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Lien Law § 17 (McKinney’s 1966 and Supp.”
Chem. Bank v. Levine, 698 N.E.2d 419 (N.Y. 1998). · cites it 2× “We are unpersuaded by defendant’s suggestion that the toll in question may be inferred by analogy to Lien Law § 17, which provides that a mechanic’s lien expires one year after it has been filed unless the lienholder commences a foreclosure action.”
In re Flintlock Realty & Constr. Corp., 188 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · cites it 2× “Lien Law § 17 provides, inter alia, that a private improvement lien is effective only for one year from the date of filing unless, within such one-year period, the lienor commences an action to foreclose the lien or secures an extension of the lien (see, 3 Warren’s Weed, New…”
Penn Hydro, Inc. v. B.V.R. Constr. Co., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04028 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “lien was filed; or unless an extension to such [*3]lien is filed with the comptroller of the state or the financial officer of the public corporation with whom the notice of such lien was filed within one year from the filing of the original notice of lien, continuing such lien…”
Show all 68 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.