Pertinent provisions of the parties' contract governing respondent's renovation of petitioner's apartment provide for a final payment "on the date the job is completed and signed off by [petitioner's] architect," with any disputes as to the quality of the work and whether or not it has been completed to be resolved solely and finally by petitioner's architect. Respondent filed a notice of mechanic's lien for an amount approximating the final payment specified in the contract, which lien petitioner seeks to discharge on the ground that the final payment is not due since her architect never signed off on the job. The application was properly denied since it does not appear from the face of the lien that it is invalid "by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished" or for any other reason set forth in Lien Law § 19 (see, Matter of Supreme Plumbing Co. v. Seadco Bldg. Corp., 224 A.D. 844). Rather, the validity of the lien plainly turns on a dispute as to whether respondent has completed the work required by the contract, and, accordingly, must await trial of the foreclosure action (see, Care Sys. v. Laramee, 155 A.D.2d 770, 771; Matter of Atlantic Cement Co. v. St. Lawrence Cement Co., 22 A.D.2d 228). Nor should the lien be reduced on the basis of the contract clause providing damages for delay, which in petitioner's view results in the lien being exaggerated. Although Lien Law § 39 provides that a willfully exaggerated lien is void, the issue of willful or fraudulent exaggeration is one that also ordinarily must be determined at the trial of the foreclosure action (see, Coppola Gen. Contr. Corp. v. Noble House Constr., 224 A.D.2d 856). We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unavailing. The best resolution of this matter is that there be a speedy trial, to which the parties committed themselves on oral agreement.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.