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

N.Y. Lien Law § 3 (2026)

Mechanic's lien on real property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 3. Mechanic's lien on real property. A contractor, subcontractor,
laborer, materialman, landscape gardener, nurseryman or person or
corporation selling fruit or ornamental trees, roses, shrubbery, vines
and small fruits, who performs labor or furnishes materials for the
improvement of real property with the consent or at the request of the
owner thereof, or of his agent, contractor or subcontractor, and any
trust fund to which benefits and wage supplements are due or payable for
the benefit of such laborers, shall have a lien for the principal and
interest, of the value, or the agreed price, of such labor, including
benefits and wage supplements due or payable for the benefit of any
laborer, or materials upon the real property improved or to be improved
and upon such improvement, from the time of filing a notice of such lien
as prescribed in this chapter. Where the contract for an improvement is
made with a husband or wife and the property belongs to the other or
both, the husband or wife contracting shall also be presumed to be the
agent of the other, unless such other having knowledge of the
improvement shall, within ten days after learning of the contract give
the contractor written notice of his or her refusal to consent to the
improvement. Within the meaning of the provisions of this chapter,
materials actually manufactured for but not delivered to the real
property, shall also be deemed to be materials furnished.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Ferrara v. Peaches Cafe LLC, 32 N.Y.3d 348 (N.Y. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ferrara v. Peaches Cafe LLC, 32 N.Y.3d 348 (N.Y. 2018). · cites it 13× “Adhering to our long-standing precedent, we hold that consent, for purposes of Lien Law § 3, was properly inferred from the terms of the lease agreement between COR and Peaches, and that the Appellate Division appropriately declined to impose a requirement that COR either…”
Ferrara, Angelo a. v. Peaches Cafe LLC, 138 A.D.3d 1391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 8× “ied in part, the first cause of action is reinstated, plaintiff’s motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order insofar as it denied its motion…”
Niagara Venture v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc., 566 N.E.2d 648 (N.Y. 1990). · cites it 4× “There is no possibility here that an owner will be burdened with a lien related to improvements it did not request.”
J.K. Tobin Constr. Co. v. David J. Hardy Constr. Co., 64 A.D.3d 1206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× “The consent required by [Lien Law § 3] is not mere acquiescence and benefit, but some affirmative act or course of conduct establishing confirmation .”
Beaudet v. Saleh, 149 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 4× “However, he did not have any direct contact with those engaged m the actual work being performed, and, of particu *773 lar importance, neither plaintiff nor anyone acting in his behalf ever obtained consent from defendants to make the proposed alterations (see, Lien Law § 3). It…”
Elliott-Williams Co., Inc. v. Impromptu Gourmet, Inc., 28 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “A contractor who performs work for, or provides equipment to, a tenant may nonetheless impose a mechanic’s lien against the premises where the owner of the premises affirmatively gave consent for the work or equipment directly to the contractor, but not where the owner has…”
Tomaselli v. Oneida Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 2× “With respect to the mechanic’s lien at issue in this action, plaintiff was required to establish that he provided architectural and engineering services “for the improvement of real property with the consent or at the request of the owner[s] thereof, or of [their] agent” (Lien…”
Forsberg v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 2008 UT App 146 (Utah Ct. App. 2008). “2 (quoting N.Y. Lien Law § 3 (McKinney 1993)). But see International Bhd.”
Spectrum Painting Contractors, Inc. v. Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 64 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “In any event, a materialperson or subcontractor is not required to be in contractual privity with the property owner in order to file and foreclose on a mechanic’s lien (see Lien Law § 3; Kuhn v Kober, 203 AD2d 536 [1994]; Rainbow Elec.”
Saratoga Assocs. Landscape Architects v. Lauter Dev. Grp., 77 A.D.3d 1219 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Supreme Court denied Zimmerman’s motion, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing Abode’s counterclaim and, as relevant here, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint.”
Tri-North Builders, Inc. v. Di Donna, 217 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff then discovered that Di Donna owned the premises and filed a notice of mechanic’s lien against the property for $143,523 under Lien Law § 3. Plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant lien foreclosure action.”
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of 360Networks (USA) Inc. v. AAF-McQuay, Inc. (In Re 360Networks (USA) Inc.), 327 B.R. 187 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). “, N.Y. Lien Law § 3 et seq.; Ca. Civil Code § 3019 et seq.”
Show all 93 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.