Tesser & Cohen, New York (Matthew W. Lakind of counsel), for appellant.
Zetlin & DeChiara LLP, New York (Jamiee L. Nardiello of counsel), for respondent.
Brian P. Hodgkinson, New York, for amicus curiae.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted the petition to discharge respondent's mechanic's lien on the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly granted the petition to discharge the mechanic's lien filed by respondent. It is well-settled that a private mechanic's lien may not attach to privately-leased, but publicly-owned, land (see Matter of Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club v. Zarrelli, 57 N.Y.2d 966, 968, 457 N.Y.S.2d 229, 443 N.E.2d 477 [1982], revg. on concurring in part, dissenting in part op. of Hopkins, J., 83 A.D.2d 444, 452, 445 N.Y.S.2d 162 [2d Dept.1981] ; Avon Elec. Supplies v. Voltaic Elec. Co., 203 A.D.2d 404, 405, 610 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2d Dept.1994] ; T.N.T. Coatings v. County of Nassau, 114 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 495 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2d Dept.1985], lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 608, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 494 N.E.2d 113 [1986] ). Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), the owner of the subject property, is a "public corporation" within the contemplation of the Lien Law, the George Washington Bridge Bus Station constituted a "public improvement" within the meaning of the Lien Law, despite petitioner's private leasehold interest in the property (Lien Law § 2[8] ; General Construction Law § 66[1], [4] ; see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 686 N.Y.S.2d 743, 709 N.E.2d 452 [1999] ; Matter of Carland Constr. Co. v. Infilco Degremont, 152 A.D.2d 694, 695, 543 N.Y.S.2d 751 [2d Dept.1989] ).
Respondent's reliance on the exception to the general rule, provided by Lien Law § 2(7), is misplaced, inasmuch as that section applies only to property owned by Industrial Development Agencies, which the Port Authority is not (see Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Indus. Dev. Agency, 85 N.Y.2d 281, 287, 624 N.Y.S.2d 92, 648 N.E.2d 468 [1995] ; Matter of PMNC v. Brothers Insulation Co., 266 A.D.2d 293, 294, 698 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2d Dept.1999] ).We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.