In this common situation a contractor filed a mechanics’ lien for work done for a tenant. The trial court denied the owner’s motion for summary judgment to declare the lien null and void.

On appeal the First Dep’t reversed in favor of the owner stating:

“The work in question was performed solely for the tenant’s benefit and convenience. Plaintiff general contractor and all of the subcontractors dealy exclusively with the tenant but for the landlord’s concerns that the renovation did not interfere with the other tenants in the building. The landlord was not a party to the contract between the general contractor and the tenants, and any renovation expenses incurred by the tenant over and above the initial credit provided by the landlord were the sole responsibility of the tenant.

Furthermore, any consent provided by the landlord was that consent required under the lease. Thus, the landlord was entitled to summary judgment under Lien Law Sec. 3 and a discharge of the liens in question…”

In short, there must be some involvement by the owner in a tenant’s project in order for the contractor to be able to maintain a lien against the owner’s interest in the real property. It is not enough that the owner is aware of the project, and that the lease contains a consent by the owner to improvements by the tenant.