Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to Lien Law § 11, a party is required to serve a notice of lien on a corporation by one of three specified methods. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the court does not have discretion to excuse noncompliance (see, Matter of PKS Dev. Co. v. Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., 187 A.D.2d 656; Matter of Hui's Realty v Transcontinental Constr. Servs., 168 A.D.2d 302; Murphy Constr. Corp. v. Morrissey, 168 A.D.2d 877). The appellant served the notice of lien on the petitioner by service on the Secretary of State, a method of service which is not authorized by Lien Law § 11. Since the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the statute, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner's application to discharge the lien. There is no merit to the appellant's contention that the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the validity of the lien (see, Matter of Northport Marina Assocs. v. Cashman, Inc., 146 B.R. 60). Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.