Opinion
9844 Index 601200/09
07-09-2019
OMNI CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, etc., Defendant–Respondent.
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Donald J. Carbone of counsel), for appellant. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Paul A. Marchisotto of counsel), for respondent.
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Donald J. Carbone of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Paul A. Marchisotto of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 15, 2017, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established prima facie that it was fraudulently induced to award plaintiff the construction contract at issue by submitting evidence that it reviewed plaintiff's bid submissions through the Vendors Information Exchange System (VENDEX) and that those submissions failed to disclose two prior investigations by the Department of Labor. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Omni Contr. Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 84 A.D.3d 763, 922 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2d Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 716, 2011 WL 5526458 [2011] ). Long before the events at issue in this case occurred, the law was well settled that defendant was, and remains, a New York City agency (see Bass v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 407, 410, 330 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2d Dept. 1972], affd 32 N.Y.2d 894, 346 N.Y.S.2d 814, 300 N.E.2d 154 [1973] ). Thus, at a minimum, plaintiff should have known that, in determining whether to award it a construction contract, defendant could review its VENDEX submissions. Defendant was not required to so inform plaintiff.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.