ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from a decision of the same court entered May 16, 2000, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated February 27, 2001 (see, CPLR 5520[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined the damages awarded for breach of contract, willful exaggeration of the mechanic's lien, and a reasonable attorney's fee incurred in discharging the willfully-exaggerated mechanic's lien. In an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract, the proper measure of damages is the "fair and reasonable market price for correcting the defective installation [or completing the construction]" (Kaufman v. Le Curt Construction Corp., 196 A.D.2d 577, 578). The Supreme Court properly excluded from the measure of damages that portion of expenses incurred for work and/or materials which were not required under the contract. With regard to the willfully-exaggerated mechanic's lien, the defendants contend that the damages should be the amount by which the lien was overstated, an interpretation of Lien Law § 39-a which has been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeals (see, Goodman v. Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 N.Y.2d 191). The penalty to be imposed should be measured only by the amount found to have been willfully exaggerated (see, Goodman v. Del-Sa-Co. Foods, supra, at 194). Finally, the evidence adduced at the inquest on damages sufficiently supported the Supreme Court's determination as to the reasonable value of the legal services rendered (see, Piazza Brothers v. Pound Ridge Bd. of Fire Commissioners, 230 A.D.2d 837, 838).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.