Mason Stationery Products, Inc. v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Marine Elec. Ry. Prods. Div., Inc.

    17 B.R. 845 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1982)   Cited 17 times

    According to Molloy and similar cases, a rejected bidder cannot have damages, because the statutes requiring the award of public contracts to the lowest responsible bidder were not enacted for the benefit of the private contractor, but for the protection of the municipal corporation and its taxpayers, and do not give to a rejected bidder an action for their violation; and because an unaccepted bid cannot sustain a contractual relation with the City or an action as upon contract." See also Molloy v. City of New Rochelle, 198 N.Y. 402, 92 N.E. 94 (1910), Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 121 (2d Dep't 1965); Kayfield Construction Corp. v. Morris, 15 A.D.2d 373, 378, 225 N.Y.S.2d 507 (1st Dep't 1962); accord Mason Stationery Products, Inc. v. New York, 65 A.D.2d 859, 410 N.Y.S.2d 379 (3d Dep't 1978) (no damages awarded for plaintiff-bidder's loss of business caused by removal from state's list of acceptable bidders). The primary reason why the New York courts deny damage relief under the state's statutory provisions requiring the lowest responsible bidder to be accepted was explained in the following passage from Molloy v. City of New Rochelle, 198 N.Y. 402 (1910), at pages 406 to 407, more than seventy years ago:

  2. Matter of Allen Group, Inc. v. Adduci

    136 A.D.2d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Nonetheless, petitioner's claim lacks substantive merit for mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act, the exercise of which is discretionary (see, Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 539). The determination of who is and who is not a responsible bidder unquestionably involves the exercise of discretion (see, Mason Stationery Prods. v State of New York, 65 A.D.2d 859). We note that respondents can and should consider any past conduct in making their decision as to whether Hamilton is a responsible bidder (see, Matter of Callanan Indus. v White, 118 A.D.2d 167, 169-170).

  3. Latin Belly Limited v. State

    83 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    The State has not waived its immunity from claims in such instance. A rejected bidder on a public contract has no claim for damages (Mason Stationery Prods. v. State of New York, 65 A.D.2d 859; Gross v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 868; Bernkrant v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 964). Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.

  4. DiBerardino's v. School Dist

    134 Misc. 2d 288 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986)   Cited 2 times
    In DiBerardino's, Inc. v Rome Consol. School Dist. (134 Misc.2d 288, 289), the court stated that: "The bidding process has been described as a quasi-judicial governmental function.

    Generally, it has been held that there is no waiver of immunity by the State and, thus, no suit for damages is permitted. (Mason Stationery Prods. v State of New York, 65 A.D.2d 859; Latin Belly v State of New York, 83 A.D.2d 706; Gross v State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 868.) This same rule applies to the defendants in this case.