The motion court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of MHA either on the complaint, to the extent it seeks damages against MHA for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, or its counterclaim under Lien Law § 39-a. However, we modify as indicated on the ground that the notice of mechanic's lien filed by plaintiff for work performed at MHA's premises is invalid for failing to identify the general contractor (Belco) with which plaintiff contracted to perform this job, as required by Lien Law § 9(3). Plaintiff admits that it had a contractual relationship with Belco, and that it received its only payment to date for such work from Belco, not MHA. Plaintiff cannot circumvent the Lien Law's requirements simply by characterizing Belco as a "broker" of contracting services; substance, not labels, should govern a party's rights and obligations.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.