From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buffalo Mun. Hous. v. Gross Plumbing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding plaintiff a judgment against defendant in the amount of the bid bond plus interest, costs and disbursements, and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment rescinding the bid and cancelling the bid bond (see, City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Bros., 87 A.D.2d 984, affd 57 N.Y.2d 618; Balaban-Gordon Co. v. Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, 41 A.D.2d 246). When defendant computed the total amount of its bid, it failed to include a single sheet of data pertaining to carpentry work that totalled an additional sum of $88,900. Defendant's bid was thus understated by that amount. The record establishes that the clerical or mathematical mistake made by defendant in its bid for certain plumbing rehabilitation at plaintiff's A.D. Price Courts and Extension project was excusable and material and of such an amount as to make enforcement of the contract unconscionable. The computational error was subject to objective determination by a comparison of the work sheets and the bid proposal. Defendant discovered the error and notified plaintiff's representative approximately four hours after the opening of bids. Therefore, plaintiff had full opportunity to correct the condition or to reject the bid and award the contract to another bidder. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff "should not be allowed to enforce the bargain" (Balaban-Gordon Co. v. Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra, at 251). "Even though the mistake is the product of negligence on the part of the bidder", relief should not be withheld (Balaban-Gordon Co. v. Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra, at 251). The provisions of plaintiff's instructions to bidders preventing withdrawal of bids on the ground of negligence do not, in these circumstances, preclude granting rescission because the mistake was clerical and not judgmental in nature (see, Jobco, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 129 A.D.2d 614, 615). Accordingly, the bid is rescinded and the bid bond cancelled (see, City of Syracuse v Sarkisian Bros., supra; Derouin's Plumbing Heating v. City of Watertown, 71 A.D.2d 822; Balaban-Gordon Co. v. Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra).


Summaries of

Buffalo Mun. Hous. v. Gross Plumbing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Buffalo Mun. Hous. v. Gross Plumbing

Case Details

Full title:BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent, v. GROSS PLUMBING HEATING…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 289