New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Lien Law § 22 (2026)
Building loan contract
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 22. Building loan contract. A building loan contract either with or without the sale of land, and any modification thereof, must be in writing and duly acknowledged, and must contain a true statement under oath, verified by the borrower, showing the consideration paid, or to be paid, for the loan described therein, and showing all other expenses, if any, incurred, or to be incurred in connection therewith, and the net sum available to the borrower for the improvement, and, on or before the date of recording the building loan mortgage made pursuant thereto, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the county in which any part of the land is situated, except that any subsequent modification of any such building loan contract so filed must be filed within ten days after the execution of any such modification. No such building loan contract or any modification thereof shall be filed in the register's office of any county. If not so filed the interest of each party to such contract in the real property affected thereby, is subject to the lien and claim of a person who shall thereafter file a notice of lien under this chapter. A modification of such contract shall not affect or impair the right or interest of a person, who, previous to the filing of such modification had furnished or contracted to furnish materials, or had performed or contracted to perform labor for the improvement of real property, but such right or interest shall be determined by the original contract. The county clerk is entitled to a fee of twenty-five dollars, except in counties within the city of New York where the fee shall be fifty dollars, for filing such a contract or modification. Except where the county clerk maintains a block index, such contracts and modifications thereof shall be indexed in a book provided for that purpose, in the alphabetical order of the names of the persons to whom such loans shall be made. No assignment of the moneys due or to become due under a building loan contract, under the provisions of section twenty-six of this article, nor any payment to the holder of such assignment, shall be or be construed to be a modification of a building loan contract within the meaning of this section, and the execution and delivery of a bond and mortgage, under the provisions of section twenty-six of this article, or payments thereunder, shall not be or be construed to be the making of a building loan contract within the meaning of this section. Except that this section shall not apply to any mortgage taken by the home owners' loan corporation, a corporation created under an act of congress, known as the "home owners' loan act of nineteen hundred thirty-three" and the "home owners' loan act of nineteen hundred thirty-three as amended," and said mortgage shall have priority over any and all liens filed subsequent to the date of the recording of said mortgage whether or not the cash and/or bonds for which said mortgage has been taken as security, shall have been advanced at the time of the execution of such mortgage or subsequent thereto, and it shall not be necessary to execute and file any building loan contract or any other contract, in compliance with this section or any part thereof. Where the county clerk indexes liens in a block index, every building loan contract presented to the clerk for filing, in order to entitle the same to be filed, shall contain in the body thereof, or shall have endorsed thereon, a designation of the number of every block, on the land map of the county, which is affected by the building loan contract. The county clerk shall cause such building loan contract to be entered in the block index, under the block number of every block so designated. In cases where a building loan contract shall have been filed without such designation or with an erroneous designation, the county clerk, on presentation of proper proof thereof, shall enter such instrument in the proper index, under the proper block number of every block in which the land affected is situated, and shall, at the same time, make a note of such entry and of the date thereof in every place in which such instrument may have been erroneously indexed, opposite the entry thereof, and also upon the instrument itself, if the same be in his possession or produced to him for the purpose, and the filing of such instrument shall be constructive notice as to property in the block not duly designated at the time of such filing only from the time when the same shall be properly indexed. A county clerk may adopt a new indexing system utilizing electro-mechanical, electronic or any other method he deems suitable for maintaining the indexes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC, 995 N.E.2d 110 (N.Y. 2013).
Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC, 995 N.E.2d 110 (N.Y. 2013). “The lender for the redevelopment and numerous mechanic’s lienors dispute the priority of their respective claims to the foreclosure sale proceeds from the auction of the tower building, a matter governed by Lien Law § 22. I. In September 2005, defendant GML Tower, LLC (GML…”
Yankee Bank for Fin. & Sav. v. Task Assocs., Inc., 731 F. Supp. 64 (N.D.N.Y. 1990). “In a thorough report, familiarity with which is assumed, the Magistrate recommended that this court adopt state law as the rule of decision, find the plaintiff to have violated N.Y. Lien Law § 22 , and based on this violation, hold that the plaintiffs interest in the foreclosure…”
Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC, 129 A.D.3d 1439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). “Plaintiff did not, however, file the 2007 loan agreement or the 2008 amendment to that agreement in the county clerks’ office, as required by Lien Law § 22. In December 2008, plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendants, some of whom had mechanic’s…”
Getman v. Green (In Re Admiral's Walk, Inc.), 134 B.R. 105 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1991). “Unless lien priority is restructured under Lien Law § 22 (or under 11 U.S.C. § 510 as discussed later), it appears that the lender’s mortgage (over $6 million advanced before the filing of the Chapter 11 petition, under a $7.”
Howard Sav. Bank v. Lefcon P'ship, 209 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “Lien Law §22 provides, in pertinent part, that a building loan agreement, as well as any modification thereof, must be *475 in writing and must show the consideration paid for the loan, all related expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with the loan, "and the net sum…”
Blais Constr. Co. v. Hanover Square Assocs.-I, 733 F. Supp. 149 (N.D.N.Y. 1990). “In the sixth counterclaim Blais maintains that Yankee Bank violated N.Y. Lien Law § 22 when it filed certain false affidavits — thereby losing its lien priority.”
Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC, 28 Misc. 3d 475 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). “The statute further provides that “[i]f not so filed the interest of each party to such contract in the real property affected thereby, is subject to the lien and claim of a person who shall thereafter file a notice of lien under this chapter.”
Dienst v. Paik Constr., Inc., 139 A.D.3d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “, 224 AD2d 588, 588-589 [2d Dept 1996]), and is subject to the subordination provisions of Lien Law § 22 (see Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd.”
Atl. Bank v. Forrest House Holding Co., 234 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “"If not so filed the interest of each party to such contract in the real property * * * is subject to the lien and claim of a person who shall thereafter file a notice of lien under this chapter” (Lien Law § 22). It is the plaintiff’s contention that so much of its mortgage as…”
Adirondack Trust Co. v. Thomas J. Bien & Assocs., Inc., 168 Misc. 2d 919 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996). “In addition, Bien in an attachment to the building loan agreement signed a statement under oath, pursuant to Lien Law § 22, that $147,707.50 was the net sum available to it from the loan proceeds for the improvements.”
Nationwide Mech. Contractors Corp. v. Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, Ltd., 188 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “adversary proceeding in United States Bankruptcy Court seeking judgment that their interest in Grossinger’s real property was superior to that of the Lenders upon the ground, inter alia, that the Lenders’ failure to require Grossinger to file the payment bond provided for in the…”
Mike Bldg. & Contracting, Inc. v. Just Homes, LLC, 27 Misc. 3d 833 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). “However, plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ failure to indicate in their Lien Law § 22 borrower’s affidavit that borrower’s equity would be deducted from the first 10 CPC advances, making these funds unavailable under the building loan to pay contractors who performed work…”
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.