VIBAR CONSTRUCTION CORP., ap, v. FAWN BUILDERS, INC. res

MATTER OF VIBAR CONSTRUCTION CORP., ap, v. FAWN BUILDERS, INC. res — (PROCEEDING NO. 2) (INDEX NOS. 18924/10, 21632/10)In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law §19(6), in effect, to summarily discharge a mechanic’s lien (Proceeding No. 1), and a related proceeding pursuant to Lien Law §12-a(2) to amend the notice of the subject lien dated March 23, 2010, nunc pro tunc, inter alia, to correct the name of the owner of the subject premises and to reflect that the lienor is named Vibar Construction Corp., instead of Vibar Construction, Inc. (Proceeding No. 2), Vibar Construction Corp., named in Proceeding No. 1 as Vibar Construction, Inc., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 8, 2011, in Proceeding No. 1, which, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of Delilah Rigano’s decedent, Nick Rigano, which was for leave to reargue the petition in Proceeding No. 1, and, upon reargument, inter alia, granted the petition and discharged the mechanic’s lien, and (2) an order of the same court in Proceeding No. 2, also entered September 8, 2011, which, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of Fawn Builders, Inc., and Delilah Rigano’s decedent, Nick Rigano, which was for leave to reargue the petition in Proceeding No. 2, and, upon reargument, denied that petition. By decision and order dated September 11, 2013, this Court affirmed the orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (see Matter of Rigano v. Vibar Constr., Inc., 109 AD3d 829). In an opinion dated December 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court, and remitted the matter to this Court “for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to [this] court” (Matter of Rigano v. Vibar Constr., Inc., 24 NY3d 415, 421). Justice Austin has been substituted for former Justice Lott (see 22 NYCRR 670.1[c]).

ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the order entered September 8, 2011, in Proceeding No. 1 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, granting the petition and discharging the mechanic’s lien, and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination denying the petition; and it is further,