25 N.Y.2d 265 (1969)
Under New York Lien Law, a party providing materials to a contractor is considered a materialman, not a subcontractor, unless they also perform labor or services that constitute a portion of the main contract’s scope of work.
Summary
A & J Buyers leased trucks and highlifts to Franjoine Trucking, who supplied gravel to Johnson, Drake & Piper (JDP), the general contractor for a road construction project. When Franjoine failed to pay A & J Buyers, they sought to enforce a lien against JDP. The court addressed whether Franjoine was a subcontractor or merely a materialman, as the Lien Law only extends lien rights to those who supply labor or materials to a contractor or its subcontractor. The Court of Appeals held that Franjoine was a materialman because its activities primarily involved supplying materials, not performing a specific portion of the construction work itself, thus A & J Buyers could not claim a lien against JDP.
Facts
JDP contracted with New York State for road construction. Franjoine agreed to supply gravel to JDP. Franjoine leased trucks and highlifts from A & J Buyers to deliver the gravel. Franjoine failed to pay A & J Buyers for the leased equipment. A & J Buyers filed a lien against JDP, claiming Franjoine was a subcontractor. Sixty percent of the gravel was simply dumped at the job site. The remaining forty percent was spread by Franjoine’s trucks directly onto the roadbed, after which JDP employees would spread, compact, and grade the gravel. Franjoine was paid based on the engineer’s measurement of the gravel after it was placed and compacted.
Procedural History
The trial court granted partial summary judgment, finding Franjoine was a subcontractor. The Appellate Division modified, stating a trial was required to determine Franjoine’s status. After trial, the trial court again concluded Franjoine was a subcontractor. The Appellate Division affirmed. JDP appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Franjoine, by supplying and delivering gravel to JDP for a road construction project, was acting as a subcontractor or merely as a materialman under Section 5 of the New York Lien Law.
Holding
No, because Franjoine’s activities were limited to supplying materials and did not constitute the performance of a specific portion of the road construction work itself. The court reversed the lower court’s decision because the essential component of being a subcontractor involves performing labor or services, not just providing materials.
Court’s Reasoning
The court analyzed the definitions of “subcontractor” and “materialman” under the New York Lien Law. The court rejected the argument that anyone furnishing materials that become part of a permanent improvement is automatically a subcontractor. The court relied on Dorn v. Johnson Corp., which stated, “Generally, a subcontractor is regarded as one who assumes performance of some part of the contract, so that labor or other service, and not merely the furnishing of materials, is involved.” The court found that Franjoine’s work away from the jobsite (loading and delivering materials) was typical of a materialman. The court found that Franjoine’s method of delivering gravel directly onto the roadbed was a common practice and did not constitute assuming a portion of the road construction contract. The court also dismissed the significance of Franjoine being paid based on the engineer’s measurements in place, as this was simply a standard method of payment for material deliveries. The dissenting opinion argued that putting material in place on a road is performing part of the road-building contract, and this question of fact had already been resolved affirmatively by the lower courts.