Article 3-A – Duane Morris Construction Law

In a recent decision, a New York appellate court reversed a trial court ruling that had granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a dispute over alleged diversion of trust funds under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law. The case, 1 Park East Construction Corp. v. Uliano, underscores the evidentiary burden required for a plaintiff to establish a case of trust fund diversion for summary judgment.

The underlying dispute arose from a construction project in which the plaintiff alleged that a corporation owned by defendant, acting as a subcontractor, received trust funds from plaintiff to purchase materials for the installation of a stormwater filtration system but failed to pay the vendor. The plaintiff sought recovery of trust funds pursuant to N.Y. Lien Law Article 3-A. Initially, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, allowing for renewal once issue had been joined. The plaintiff subsequently renewed its motion, which the trial court granted, awarding damages in the principal sum of $78,066.62 against the defendant. The defendant appealed, leading to the reversal of the trial court’s decision.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the plaintiff had failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the defendant had diverted trust funds. Under Article 3-A of the Lien Law, contractors and subcontractors who receive payments for construction projects hold those funds in trust for the benefit of subcontractors, suppliers, and other designated beneficiaries. Any unauthorized use of these funds before all trust claims have been satisfied constitutes an impermissible diversion, regardless of intent. However, the court emphasized that a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the trust assets were improperly used for unauthorized expenditures.

In this case, while it was undisputed that the defendant had received trust assets and had not paid the vendor, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had used the funds for unauthorized purposes. The court cited precedents emphasizing that summary judgment is inappropriate where factual questions remain unresolved, particularly in cases involving allegations of improper use of trust assets.

This decision serves as a reminder that plaintiffs seeking summary judgment on claims of trust fund diversion must present undisputed evidence that the defendant misused trust assets in violation of Lien Law § 71. Mere nonpayment to a vendor, without additional proof of improper diversion, is insufficient to grant summary judgment. The ruling confirms that summary judgment is inappropriate when factual disputes exist, leaving such issues to be resolved at trial.

Notably, however, the opinion fails to address how the plaintiff acquired standing to assert a trust fund diversion claim. Under the trust fund provisions of the Lien Law, only those who are beneficiaries—that is, those entitled to receive payment from the trust—generally have standing. In this case, the opinion states that the plaintiff paid trust funds to defendant’s corporation, a fact that typically indicates the plaintiff was merely the payer rather than a beneficiary. The sole exception in the statute is found in Lien Law § 71‑a(4)(a), which provides that under a home improvement contract, payments received from an owner by a home improvement contractor prior to substantial completion may be considered trust funds, thereby designating the owner as the beneficiary. Unfortunately, the decision does not address whether the dispute involves a home improvement contract, nor does it clarify the plaintiff’s actual role in the construction project, leaving its standing under the trust fund diversion claim uncertain.

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on X) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and of the Cuba Business Group. Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on construction law, lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, recently revisited several legal principles of Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law in the case of Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. HPH Services, Inc., 230 A.D.3d 446 (1st Dept. 2024). The court’s ruling provides important clarifications on personal liability, standing in trust asset diversion claims, and the conditions under which punitive damages may be awarded.

A key aspect of this case is the court’s affirmation of the contractor’s standing to assert a claim for the diversion of trust assets under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law. Article 3-A establishes a trust fund for monies received in connection with improvements to real property and designates the recipient of such funds—whether an owner, contractor, or subcontractor—as the trustee of those funds. The trustee is obligated to hold the funds in trust until the claims of all trust fund beneficiaries are either paid or discharged.

Trust beneficiaries, where the subcontractor is a trustee, include sub-subcontractors, architects, engineers, surveyors, laborers, and suppliers who provided labor or materials for the improvement. Section 77 of the Lien Law provides that the “holder of any trust claim, including any person subrogated to the right of a beneficiary of the trust holding a trust claim,” may maintain a cause of action for the enforcement of the trust.

In Flintlock, the court found that the contractor had standing to enforce a trust claim against its subcontractor. This standing was based on the contractor’s status as a subrogee of the subcontractor’s suppliers, a status formed by the contractor’s involuntary payments to the subcontractor’s unpaid vendors. Under the doctrine of subrogation, one party gains the right to enforce another party’s claim by paying the other party’s debt under compulsion or to protect some interest. By making these “involuntary” payments, the contractor acquired the right to assert claims initially held by the subcontractor’s suppliers.

Although the appellate opinion leaves some ambiguity regarding what constitutes an involuntary payment, an earlier decision by the trial court provides clarification. It explains that a payment can be deemed involuntary either due to a contractual obligation or the necessity to protect the payer’s legal or economic interests. The trial court emphasized that when relying on the latter, the party must prove that the action is not just beneficial but essential to safeguard its interests.

For instance, a contractor who makes payments to trust beneficiaries can enforce an Article 3-A trust if they have already paid the subcontractor and are subsequently required to pay the subcontractor’s suppliers or sub-subcontractors due to the subcontractor’s failure to do so. Among other situations, this requirement can arise from either a contractual obligation or a payment bond obligation.

The First Department’s opinion in Flintlock aligns with the Appellate Division, Second Department’s ruling in J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc. v. Realm Elec. Contrs., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 444 (2d Dept. 2005). In Petrocelli, the court similarly found that a contractor who involuntarily paid a subcontractor’s unpaid vendors could maintain a cause of action under Article 3-A, recognizing the contractor as a subrogee with standing to enforce trust claims. The court emphasized that involuntary payments to cover a subcontractor’s obligations can establish standing to enforce trust fund claims.

It is also noteworthy that the appellate court in Flintlock found the principal of the subcontractor personally liable for the diversion of trust assets. The evidence presented showed that the principal knowingly participated in the diversion, including a substantial payment that was funneled through various accounts before ending up with one of his companies.

While punitive damages can be awarded for violations of Lien Law Article 3–A involving the diversion of trust assets, the court in this case declined to adopt a fixed rule that would make such damages recoverable in every instance. The plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that punitive damages were warranted under the specific circumstances of this case serves as a reminder that such awards are not automatic and must be justified by the particular facts presented.

The decision in Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. HPH Services, Inc., highlights the potential personal liability for those who divert trust assets. It also clarifies that while punitive damages can be a remedy for diversion of trust assets, they are not automatically awarded and must be justified by the specific circumstances of each case. Furthermore, the ruling provides valuable insight into the conditions under which a contractor can establish standing as a subrogee to enforce trust fund claims, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating involuntary payments made to protect their economic interests.

Tag: Article 3-A

Trust Fund Diversion Claims Require Clear Evidence of Unauthorized Expenditures

KEY TAKEAWAYS UNDER ARTICLE 3-A OF THE LIEN LAW FROM A RECENT NY APPELLATE COURT DECISION