Matter of Allen v. Eberling

38 Citing cases

  1. Carroll-Ratner Corp. v. City Manager of New Rochelle

    54 Misc. 2d 625 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    (Emphasis added.) These statutory requirements for entitlement to damages in an article 78 proceeding were expressly recognized and applied in Matter of Allen v. Eberling ( 24 A.D.2d 594 [2d Dept.]) wherein the court said: "As will appear, the second requirement is not met here because petitioner has neither statutory nor common-law right to damages.

  2. Housing Works, Inc. v. Turner

    00 Civ. 1122 (LAK)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that newsletter, newspaper articles and other media coverage “of the plaintiff's protected activities ... cannot be defined as hearsay under Rule 801(c) because the plaintiff h not cited them to prove the truth of the statements they contain”

    Under New York law, an entity that is not awarded a city contract in violation of the rule that such contracts be awarded to the lowest bidder may institute Article 78 proceedings against the city, but is precluded from recovering lost profits on the contract. See Nu-Life Construction Corp. v. Board of Education of New York, 204 A.D.2d 106, 108, 611 N.Y.S.2d 529, 531 (1st Dep't 1994); Woods Advertising, Inc. v. Koch, 178 A.D.2d 155, 156, 577 N.Y.S.2d 22, 23 (1st Dep't 1991);Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594, 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 122, 122-23 (2d Dep't 1965). This rule is based on the principle that laws regulating the award of public contracts are enacted for the protection of the public, not for the benefit of individual bidders.

  3. Spencer, White Prentis v. S.W. Sewer Dist

    103 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ The purpose of the provisions of article 5-A of the General Municipal Law is to "assure the prudent and economical use of public moneys for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the state and to facilitate the acquisitions of facilities and commodities of maximum quality at the lowest possible cost" (General Municipal Law, § 100-a). Competitive bidding procedures are designed "to protect municipalities and the taxpayers therein, not to benefit or enrich bidders" ( Matter of Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594; Jered Contr. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187, 193). ¶ There is no merit to the plaintiffs' first cause of action.

  4. Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame

    567 F.2d 1197 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that rational basis exists for city policy favoring union printers over non-union printers

    These regulations are designed to benefit the public, not the bidders. See General Bldg. Contractors v. Bd. of Trustees, 42 A.D.2d 660, 345 N.Y.S.2d 195 (1973); Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 121 (1965); Marino v. Town of Ramapo, 68 Misc.2d 44, 326 N.Y.S.2d 162 (1971). They should not be used to promote the interests of labor organizations by forcing printing shops to unionize in order to qualify for city contracts.

  5. 106 Mile Transport Associates v. Koch

    656 F. Supp. 1474 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    McDermott and Gretna do have standing under the competitive bidding law, N.Y.Gen.Mun. Law § 103 to complain that they were treated unfairly in the bidding process. Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (2d Dept. 1965) ("While it is true that an unsuccessful bidder has standing to maintain a proceeding to review the award of a contract in violation of a statute requiring that the contract go to the lowest responsible bidder, this procedure is sanctioned merely to ensure enforcement of the statute.") C. Statute of Limitations

  6. Williams v. Codd

    459 F. Supp. 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)   Cited 14 times

    Most important, damages are only available to a petitioner when they are "incidental to the primary relief." Schwab v. Bowen, 41 N.Y.2d 907, 394 N.Y.S.2d 616, 363 N.E.2d 341 (1977); Allen v. Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (2d Dept. 1965). In Schwab v. Bowen, supra, the New York Court of Appeals held that damages could not be awarded in a case where employees were seeking to have their discharge reviewed.

  7. 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:

  8. Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York

    80 N.Y.2d 366 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 115 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed

    As one commentator has put it, an "award based on [the expectation interest] would give the injured party the 'benefit of the bargain' that was not reached. But if no agreement was reached and * * * it cannot even be known what agreement would have been reached, there is no way to measure the lost expectation" (1 Farnsworth, Contracts § 3.26a, at 314 [emphasis added]; cf., Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594 [unsuccessful bidder not entitled to lost profits based on bid that was not accepted]; Excavation Constr. v United States, 494 F.2d 1289, 1290 [Ct Cl 1974] [damages for improperly rejected bid cannot exceed bid preparation costs]; Sardella Constr. Co. v Braintree Hous. Auth., 3 Mass. App. Ct. 326, 329 N.E.2d 762 [recovery limited to bid preparation costs]). There is a further reason for rejecting plaintiff's loss of profits damages claim even assuming hypothetically that the letter agreements could somehow provide the theoretical predicate for such damages.

  9. Commercial Clean. Corp. v. Sullivan

    47 N.J. 539 (N.J. 1966)   Cited 48 times
    Admonishing that "courts should not and cannot substitute their discretion for that of the Director"

    It should be noted that appellant quite properly makes no claim for damages based upon the alleged improper failure to award it the contract. Submission of the lowest bid in answer to an advertisement for bids by the State for public work cannot be the basis of a claim for damages based upon the failure or refusal to accept such bid. Cf. Somers Construction Co. v. Board ofEducation, 198 F. Supp. 732 ( D.N.J. 1962); Malan Const.Corp. v. Board of County Road Com'rs, 187 F. Supp. 937 ( E.D.Mich. 1960); Day v. City of Beatrice, 169 Neb. 858, 101 N.W.2d 481, 488 ( Sup.Ct. 1960); Allen v. Eberling, 24 App. Div.2 d 594, 262 N.Y.S.2d 121 ( App. Div. 1965); 43 Am. Jur., Public Worksand Contracts, § 65 (1942); 10 McQuillin, MunicipalCorporations, § 29.86 (3 d ed. 1950). Appellant contends that since it was the lowest bidder the Director could not reject its bid summarily.

  10. Stride Contracting v. Board of Contract

    181 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    While an unsuccessful bidder has standing to maintain a proceeding to review the award of a contract in violation of a statute requiring that the contract go to the lowest responsible bidder, this procedure is sanctioned only to ensure enforcement of General Municipal Law § 103, which prescribes when and the manner in which a municipality shall request bids and award contracts (see, Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 A.D.2d 594). That statute was enacted to protect municipalities and its taxpayers, not to benefit bidders (see, Matter of Allen v Eberling, supra, at 594).