Matthew Alter

Following summary judgment and cross-motions in a construction lien dispute, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

Both parties asserted substantial success: the plaintiff emphasized that key lien issues proceeded to trial, while the defendant argued it had significantly reduced its potential liability by eliminating several claims.

The court determined that success on the motions was divided.

Exercising its discretion under costs principles including proportionality and fairness, the court declined to award costs to either side for the motion and cross-motion.

Remaining costs in the action were left to be determined by the Construction Lien Master in the cause.

A contractor commenced a construction lien action after supplying refrigeration equipment to a tenant operating on leased premises.

The landlord sought summary judgment dismissing the lien claim and related claims, arguing it was not an “owner” under the Construction Lien Act and that the claims in contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were improperly advanced.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the contract claim against the landlord and rejecting a request to pierce the corporate veil, and struck the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims as improperly joined under s. 55 of the Construction Lien Act.

However, the court held that factual issues remained regarding whether the landlord qualified as a statutory “owner” and whether the lien was timely preserved.

The action was therefore referred to a master for determination of the remaining construction lien issues.