
    TOWNSEND v. WORK et al.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    June 18, 1894.)
    Mechanics’ Liens—Canceling Lis Pendens.
    After the complaint in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien has been dismissed by the referee as against the owner of the premises, no lien can be established, but plaintiff, if diligent, may proceed with the action in order to enable him to appeal from the judgment to be entered on the report of the referee; and a delay by plaintiff of more than a year is unreasonable neglect, within Code Civ. Proc. § 1674, providing for canceling notice of lis pendens.
    
      Appeal from special term, Queens county. .
    Action by Charles De Kay Townsend against Emma M. Work, impleaded with Albert O. Hendrickson and others, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From an order canceling plaintiff’s lis pendens,, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.
    Mortimer S. Brown, for appellant.
    Marbury & Fox (Charles Fox, of counsel), for respondents.
   DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens filed in the action. The action is by the assignee of a mechanic’s lien to procure the foreclosure thereof. A referee was appointed on the 29th day of November. 1892, to hear and determine the action; and the trial proceeded before him until the 29th day of March, 1893, when the complaint was dismissed, as against the defendant Emma M. Work, the owner of the premises. After such dismissal, no lien could be established against the property; and the only reason for the continuation of the action was to enable the plaintiff to appeal from the judgment to be entered upon the report of the referee, when it should be made. In that situation the plaintiff was required to use active diligence to bring the trial to a close, to the end that an appeal could be taken. Instead of activity, there was a delay of one year before the order was made from which this appeal is taken. In the meantime the plaintiff received an admonition from the court when the order for the cancellation of the lis pendens was denied, in December, 1892, with leave to renew the motion unless the plaintiff proceeded diligently with the action. We think the plaintiff has unreasonably neglected to proceed in the action, within the intention of section 1674 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.  