Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant property owner sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action to foreclose a mechanic's lien on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the parties. However, it is well settled that "a material[person] or subcontractor is not required to be in contractual privity with the property owner in order to foreclose a mechanic's lien" (Regal Lbr. Co. v Buck, 157 Misc.2d 376, 378; see also, Rainbow Elec. Co. v Bloom, 132 A.D.2d 539; Hartman v Travis, 81 A.D.2d 692). Accordingly, since the plaintiff's action sought only the foreclosure of its lien, and did not assert any cause of action based upon a contractual relationship between the parties, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.