## Facts

- Cooper & Evans Co. was the general contractor on a City of New York public improvement project.
- Michael Di Menna, a subcontractor, furnished labor and materials under an arrangement with Cooper & Evans.
- Di Menna alleged Cooper & Evans promised to make progress advances, did so for a time, then refused further advances in August 1910, discharged him, and terminated the contract.
- Di Menna claimed a balance due for labor and materials exceeding prior payments and sought (i) foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien against funds owed by the City to Cooper & Evans and (ii) a personal money judgment against Cooper & Evans.
- The City contested the existence/validity of the lien.
- Cooper & Evans denied liability and counterclaimed that Di Menna wrongfully abandoned the contract, seeking substantial money damages.
- An appellate order framed money-judgment issues for jury trial; a jury found a net amount due to Di Menna and rejected Cooper & Evans’s counterclaim.
- The court later held the lien invalid as untimely filed but entered a personal judgment for Di Menna based on the jury’s verdict.

## Issues

1. In a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action, are jury findings conclusive or merely advisory when the case includes legal claims (including a legal counterclaim) alongside equitable lien issues?
2. If the mechanic’s lien is invalid, may the court still award a personal money judgment against the contractor when that relief is demanded and the underlying debt is proved?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals modified and affirmed.
- A mechanic’s lien foreclosure claim is equitable; jury determinations on lien validity/foreclosure are advisory to the court.
- A legal counterclaim for money damages is triable by jury as of right; the jury’s determination on that legal controversy is conclusive.
- Although the lien failed, the court could still award a personal judgment against Cooper & Evans because the pleadings sought that relief and the statute permitted common-law relief within the lien action.
- The personal judgment for Di Menna, grounded on the jury’s binding resolution of the parties’ money dispute, was sustained notwithstanding the lien’s invalidity.

## Legal Principles

- Mechanic’s lien foreclosure is generally equitable; absent a statutory right, jury findings on equitable lien issues do not bind the court.
- When legal issues are properly submitted to a jury in a mixed action, the jury’s verdict is binding as to those legal issues (including a legal counterclaim for damages).
- Statutes governing mechanic’s lien actions may permit entry of a personal money judgment even when the lien is defective or invalid, provided the complaint seeks that relief and the debt is established.
- A court may retain the action to resolve and enter judgment on the underlying debt to avoid duplicative litigation, even if lien enforcement fails.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that, in a mixed mechanic’s lien foreclosure action, a jury’s determinations are advisory on equitable lien questions but conclusive on legal money claims such as a contractor’s damages counterclaim, and that statutory lien procedure allows a personal judgment for the subcontractor even though the lien itself is invalid.


Di Menna v. Cooper & Evans Co., 220 N.Y. 391, 115 N.E. 993 (N.Y. 1917)