From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amalithone Realty Co., Inc., v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1937
251 App. Div. 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

June 22, 1937.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Benjamin M. Robinson, for the appellant.

Alvin McKinley Sylvester of counsel [ Paxton Blair with him on the brief; Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel], for the respondents.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., UNTERMYER, DORE, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.


Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of Special Term as denied plaintiff an injunction pendente lite restraining defendants from awarding or performing a contract for the purchase of certain printed matter known as index books of vital statistics for the department of health. Other relief was granted, but as to that no appeal was taken, and such issues are not before us.

We consider that the order, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, on the ground that the commissioner of purchase was vested with legal authority to award the contract on any one of the stated alternatives for which bids were asked, that the award was to the lowest bidder in one of the classes named, and that there is no claim of corruption, fraud or bad faith amounting to fraud.


Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Amalithone Realty Co., Inc., v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1937
251 App. Div. 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Amalithone Realty Co., Inc., v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:AMALITHONE REALTY CO., INC., a Domestic Corporation, Appellant, v. THE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 22, 1937

Citations

251 App. Div. 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
297 N.Y.S. 262

Citing Cases

Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame

However, two subsequent cases approved the requirement at issue in this case. Burland Printing Co. v.…