Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
HUDSON DEMOLITION CO., INC., Appellant,
v.
ISMOR REALTY CORP., Respondent.
April 3, 1978.
 Plaintiff brought action to foreclose mechanic's lien.  The Supreme Court, 
Nassau County, Wager, J., denied foreclosure, and plaintiff appealed.  The 
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, held that where block and 
lot description placed within notice of lien described an adjacent property, 
fact that face sheet of notice of lien contained proper address of property on 
which plaintiff sought to place his lien did not make the lien valid and did not 
constitute substantial compliance with statute.
 Affirmed.
West Headnotes
Mechanics' Liens  157(1)
257k157(1) Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 414k157(1))
Where block and lot description placed within notice of lien described an 
adjacent property, fact that face sheet of notice of lien contained proper 
address of property on which plaintiff sought to place its lien did not make the 
lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with statute. Lien Law 
§  9, subd. 7.
 **328 Harvey S. Barr, Spring Valley, for appellant.
 Dreyer & Traub, New York City (Samuel Kirschenbaum, New York City, of counsel), 
for respondent.
 Before GULOTTA, J. P., and SHAPIRO, COHALAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.
 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
 *980 In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, plaintiff appeals from so 
much of a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 7, 
1977, as, after a nonjury trial, denied foreclosure of the lien.
 Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
 In our view plaintiff-appellant's notice of lien failed to comply with the 
requirements of subdivision 7 of section 9 of the Lien Law.  The block and lot 
description placed within the notice of lien described an adjacent property.  
The fact that the face sheet of the notice of lien contained the proper address 
of the property on which plaintiff sought to place its lien does not make the 
lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with the statute.
 The face sheet was not an integral part of the notice of lien, and thus a party 
examining the pertinent part of the notice would not be able to identify the 
premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty, to the exclusion of 
all others (cf. Hurley v. Tucker, 128 App.Div. 580, 112 N.Y.S. 980; Roshirt, 
Inc. v. Rosenstock, 138 Misc. 515, 247 N.Y.S. 420).
403 N.Y.S.2d 327, 62 A.D.2d 980
END OF DOCUMENT
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
HUDSON DEMOLITION CO., INC., Appellant,v.ISMOR REALTY CORP., Respondent.

April 3, 1978.

 Plaintiff brought action to foreclose mechanic's lien.  The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Wager, J., denied foreclosure, and plaintiff appealed.  The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, held that where block and lot description placed within notice of lien described an adjacent property, fact that face sheet of notice of lien contained proper address of property on which plaintiff sought to place his lien did not make the lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with statute.
 Affirmed.

West Headnotes
Mechanics' Liens  157(1)257k157(1) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 414k157(1))
Where block and lot description placed within notice of lien described an adjacent property, fact that face sheet of notice of lien contained proper address of property on which plaintiff sought to place its lien did not make the lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with statute. Lien Law §  9, subd. 7. **328 Harvey S. Barr, Spring Valley, for appellant.
 Dreyer & Traub, New York City (Samuel Kirschenbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

 Before GULOTTA, J. P., and SHAPIRO, COHALAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
 *980 In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, plaintiff appeals from so much of a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 7, 1977, as, after a nonjury trial, denied foreclosure of the lien.
 Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
 In our view plaintiff-appellant's notice of lien failed to comply with the requirements of subdivision 7 of section 9 of the Lien Law.  The block and lot description placed within the notice of lien described an adjacent property.  The fact that the face sheet of the notice of lien contained the proper address of the property on which plaintiff sought to place its lien does not make the lien valid and did not constitute substantial compliance with the statute.
 The face sheet was not an integral part of the notice of lien, and thus a party examining the pertinent part of the notice would not be able to identify the premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty, to the exclusion of all others (cf. Hurley v. Tucker, 128 App.Div. 580, 112 N.Y.S. 980; Roshirt, Inc. v. Rosenstock, 138 Misc. 515, 247 N.Y.S. 420).
403 N.Y.S.2d 327, 62 A.D.2d 980
END OF DOCUMENT