Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs willfully exaggerated the subject lien ( see Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp., 1 AD3d 580, 581; East Hills Metro v Dennis Constr. Corp., 277 AD2d 348; Fidelity N.Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., 234 AD2d 263). The fact that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a plaintiff willfully exaggerated a lien ( see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 NY2d 191 [1965]). This is particularly true in light of the requirement that Lien Law § 39-a must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed ( see Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, supra; Pyramid Champlain Co. v Brosseau Co., 267 AD2d 539; Guzman v Estate of Fluker, 226 AD2d 676).