The IAS Court properly found that the appellants' failure to comply with the statutory service and filing requirements of Lien Law § 11, requiring the lienor to serve a copy of the notice of lien upon the owner within thirty days after filing the notice of lien, and expressly stating that the failure to file a proof of such service within thirty-five days after the notice of lien is filed "shall terminate the notice as a lien", mandates vacatur of the mechanic's lien purportedly filed by the appellants against the subject premises.
Appellants, while conceding that they failed to satisfy the requirements of Lien Law § 11, contend that their "substantial compliance" with the service and filing requirement is sufficient, in accordance with Lien Law § 23. The language of Lien Law § 11, however, is clear and unambiguous, and mandates vacatur of mechanic's liens in the absence of strict compliance by the lienor with the provisions thereof (Matter of Hui's Realty v Transcontinental Constr. Servs., 168 A.D.2d 302, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 810; Murphy Constr. Corp. v Morrissey, 168 A.D.2d 877).
We have reviewed the appellants' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.