Grill and Prisco Secure Cancellation of Mechanic’s Lien and Lien Discharge Bond

On June 9, 2026, State Supreme Court Judge Gerald Lebovits ordered the cancellation of a lien discharge bond, saving David Grill’s and Michael Prisco’s property-owner client nearly $602,000.

This dispute arose from a construction project located at 303 West 113th Street. Our client, the owner, entered into a contract with a general contractor (the “lienor”) for a guaranteed maximum price of $5.4 million. At the conclusion of the project, the general contractor filed a mechanics lien against the project, in the amount of $601,844.88, for money it claims it was owed for work, labor, and services provided on the project.

After successfully arguing that lienor’s initial itemized statement of lien was deficient because it lacked basic descriptions, details and supporting documentation related to the materials and labor expended on the project, the lienor was granted the opportunity to file a revised itemized statement. Upon receipt of the revised itemized statement, we moved to vacate and cancel the lien, arguing, among other things, that the statement used a total cost calculation that failed to identify the actual work and labor which accounted for the $601,844.88 claimed in the lien. The general contractor simply provided an accounting of all the expenses incurred, less all the amounts paid, and claimed the difference as the subject of the lien.

While the motion was pending, the owner filed a lien discharge bond because a clear title was required to sell units. In response, the lienor filed a letter with the court claiming the bond rendered the motion moot because the lien had been discharged by bond. We opposed the submission by arguing that the posting of a bond merely shifts the means of recovery from the real property to the bond. The validity of the lien itself still must be established in order to recover against the bond.

Judge Lebovits agreed with our arguments and ordered that the bond be cancelled. The court explained that when a lienor simply provides all their costs, both paid and unpaid, they fail to provide the itemization required under the lien law because there is no way “to check math” as to the actual work, labor, and services which comprises the amounts claimed in the lien. The court relied exclusively on FPG v Pizzarroti (2022 NY Slip OP 30098), which we discussed extensively in our filings.

The court also rejected the lienor’s arguments regarding the bond absolving it from complying with the lien law. The court reasoned that the validity of the lien must be established, regardless of whether a lien discharged bond is procured.

Click here to view a copy of the order.