Subcontractor Claims Against a Project Tenant: MCM Products

Reviewed September 7, 2026.

In MCM Products USA, Inc. v. Aliusta Design, 2015 NY Slip Op 32187(U), Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed Hudson Concrete Polishing's counterclaims against the project tenant on an unopposed motion. MCM leased the property; it was not the fee owner.

Hudson's agreement was with general contractor A.J.S. Its unjust-enrichment allegations sought payment for that same contractual work without facts establishing an independent obligation by MCM. The court held those allegations insufficient. A party's receipt of a benefit from construction does not, by itself, create a direct payment promise to the subcontractor.

The court separately dismissed the trust-fund counterclaims because they lacked facts supporting the alleged trust, diversion and entitlement to an accounting.

Identify each claim's actual basis

The decision concerns the pleadings and record before the court. It does not mean every subcontractor lacks lien or trust remedies whenever direct contractual privity is absent. Identify the property interests, contracting parties, payment promises, trust assets and statutory requirements before selecting or defending claims.

Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with construction payment litigation. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.

Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.