Matter of Haskell-Gilroy Inc. v. Young

15 Citing cases

  1. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. Town of Southeast

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4765 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that deviation from criteria in bid request "gives rise to speculation that favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud or corruption may have played a role in the [award] decision"

    Corp. v Board of Educ. of Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 91 NY2d 51; Matter of Positive Transp. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Transp., 183 AD2d 660; Abco Bus Co. v Macchiarola, 75 AD2d 831, 52 NY2d 938, 454 US 822; Matter of Eldor Contr. Corp. v Town of Islip, 277 AD2d 233; Matter of DeFoe Corp. v New York City Dept. of Transp., 87 NY2d 754; Matter ofRiverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 NY3d 219; Syracuse Intercepting Sewer Bd. v Fidelity Deposit Co., 255 NY 288; Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v Young, 20 Misc 2d 294, 10 AD2d 629, 717.) II. The Town of Southeast was not required to hold a hearing or issue findings of fact pursuant to General Municipal Law § 103. ( Quain v Buzzetta Constr. Corp., 69 NY2d 376; Matter of LaCorte Elec. Constr. Maintenance v County of Rensselaer, 80 NY2d 232; Matter of B. Milligan Contr. v State of New York, 251 AD2d 1084; Matter of Eldor Contr. Corp. v Town of Islip, 277 AD2d 233; Matter of K M Turf Maintenance [Gallo], 166 AD2d 445; Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v Young, 20 Misc 2d 294; Matter of Dellwood Foods v Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson School Dist., 97 Misc 2d 751; Matter of Schiavone Constr. Co. v Larocca, 117 AD2d 440, 68 NY2d 610; Matter of Tilles v Williams, 119 AD2d 233; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Public Serv. Commn., 63 NY2d 424, 470 US 1075.) Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFPEO, SMITH and JONES concur with Judge CIPARICK; Judge PIGOTT dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge READ concurs.

  2. Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v. Young

    10 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

    February 1, 1960 Present — Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ. [ 20 Misc.2d 294.] Appeal from an order dismissing the petition in a proceeding to annul a resolution adopted by the respondent Board of Education awarding a contract for a public improvement to respondent Howell and to award said contract to appellant, and for other relief. Appellant, the lowest bidder, contends that the award of the contract was made to respondent Howell, the second lowest bidder, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 103 Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

  3. Dellwood Foods v. Bd. of Educ

    97 Misc. 2d 751 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    A responsible bidder is one who possesses adequate capital resources, skill, judgment, integrity, moral worth and is accountable and reliable (Matter of Caristo Constr. Corp. v Rubin, 30 Misc.2d 185, mod on other grounds 15 A.D.2d 561, affd 10 N.Y.2d 538; Matter of Meyer v Board of Educ., 31 Misc.2d 407). The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that it was the lowest responsible bidder (Matter of Meyer v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Haskell-Gilroy v Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, affd 10 A.D.2d 629). It must be shown that the determination to reject the lowest bid was arbitrary and capricious or based on insufficient evidence (Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, supra).

  4. Seacoast Con. Corp. v. Lckprt. Urb. Renal

    72 Misc. 2d 372 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    "The petitioner was simply offered the right to bid for a contract and was unable to prove to the satisfaction of the board its ability to qualify as the `lowest responsible bidder'." ( Matter of Haskell-Gilroy Inc. v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, 295, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629). In that case, petitioner had requested and was granted a hearing.

  5. Mtr. of Fonseca v. Bd. of Educ

    58 Misc. 2d 223 (N.Y. Misc. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    The award to McCarey Company was made after proper competitive bidding pursuant to section 103 Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law. The contract was properly awarded and this court may not substitute any other result. ( Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629 [2d Dept., 1960]; Matter of Southern Steel Co. v. County of Suffolk, 51 Misc.2d 198, 202 [Sup. Ct., Suffolk County, 1966].)

  6. Matter of So. Steel Co. v. County of Suffolk

    51 Misc. 2d 198 (N.Y. Misc. 1966)   Cited 6 times

    We are constrained to determine the county's action to have been neither arbitrary nor capricious and the award proper. Petitioners are not found unqualified, but rather the specifications attacked determined to have been reasonable, proper, competitive and complied with by others and not petitioners. The contract was properly awarded and we may not substitute any other result ( Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, aff'd 10 A.D.2d 629). The petition and cross petition are dismissed and the applications denied.

  7. Matter. of Arglo Corp. v. Bd. of Educ

    47 Misc. 2d 618 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    ( Matter of Kayfield Constr. Corp. v. Morris, 15 A.D.2d 373, 378.) The law is well settled that an administrative determination without notice or hearing does not violate any rights where the statute does not so provide and where the determination does not affect a property right. ( Matter of Haskell-Gilroy v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629.) The contention that section 103-a Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law is unconstitutional is thus also without merit, insofar as it affects the facts in this case, and requires no further discussion.

  8. Zara Contracting Co. v. Cohen

    45 Misc. 2d 497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)   Cited 15 times

    Thus, the courts may not interfere, in an article 78 proceeding brought by a bidder, with the lawful exercise of discretion vested in the awarding body ( Matter of Tuller Constr. Co. v. Lyon, 257 N.Y. 206; Matter of Glen Truck Sales Serv., 31 Misc.2d 1027, 1029; Matter of Limitone v. Galgano, 21 Misc.2d 376, 378, supra Matter of Kniska v. Splain, 201 Misc. 729, 731) and rarely will the court by way of an order in the nature of mandamus direct an administrative agency or official to award a contract to a particular bidder ( Matter of Albro Contr. Corp. v. Department of Public Works, 13 Misc.2d 846, 849; Matter of Luboil Heat Power Corp. v. Pleydell, 178 Misc. 562, 566, supra). The primary object of the bidding law in question was for the benefit and protection of the public ( People ex rel. Gaffey v. Fobes, 151 App. Div. 245, 253, affd. 210 N.Y. 598; Matter of Haskell-Gilroy v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, 295, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629). Here, the awarding official had before him the fact of the pending indictment in which petitioner was named as a defendant charged with a crime arising out of a similar contract and concerning which the State was the alleged victim.

  9. Matter of Silberblatt, Inc. v. Phalen

    41 Misc. 2d 899 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    As a matter of fact, the authorities are to the contrary. (See Matter of Haskell-Gilroy, Inc. v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629; Matter of Albro Contr. Corp. v. Department of Public Works of State of N.Y., 13 Misc.2d 846; Matter of Daniel J. Rice, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 A.D.2d 958.) As to the contention that the Fund did not elect to consider the qualifications, responsibility and reliability of the bidders, the letter from the Fund returning the certified check which petitioner had submitted with its bid is sufficient answer.

  10. Matter of Suffolk Roadways, Inc. v. Minuse

    39 Misc. 2d 276 (N.Y. Misc. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    This is made clear in the instructions to bidders wherein it is stated that the authority "is not able to determine in advance the volume of work to be done". In view of that problem reliance on very recently past experience is not arbitrary. Since there was a plausible basis for the respondent's action, the court will not interfere. ( Matter of Haskell-Gilroy v. Young, 20 Misc.2d 294, affd. 10 A.D.2d 629; Matter of W.J. Gaskell, Inc. v. Maslanka, 33 Misc.2d 88; Merrick Utility Associates v. Suffolk County Water Auth., supra.) Petitioner also complains that the successful bidder submitted a qualified bid because it stated that it would charge a $50 minimum at any given site.