Opinion
April 23, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, we find that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants violated the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340) (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Specifically, the evidence established that the defendant Isaac Schwartz owned up to 75% of each of the three defendant corporations, and conspired with the corporations (see, Bevilacque v. Ford Motor Co., 125 A.D.2d 516, 518), to restrict free trade and competition by submitting collusive bids on contracts for furnishings for a nursing home established pursuant to Public Health Law article 28-A (see, 10 NYCRR 87.40 [b]). The purpose of the bids was to give the appearance of complying with the aforementioned regulations governing competitive bidding requirements. It is clear that the defendants, submitting bids with fictitious signatures, entered into an arrangement with the administrator of the nursing home, who testified only after receiving immunity, whereby the bids of independent competitors were summarily rejected by the administrator in favor of the defendants' bids. Moreover, there was evidence that the defendant Schwartz admitted that he maintained three corporations for the express purpose of submitting multiple bids on nursing home and hospital contracts because it improved his chances of winning since he was in fact competing with himself. In truth, however, he was, by arrangement with the administrator, the only competitor for the contracts in question, and thereby committed per se anticompetitive acts of bid rigging (see, United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 317-318; United States v. Koppers Co., 652 F.2d 290, 293-295, cert denied 454 U.S. 1083; United States v. Brighton Bldg. Maintenance Co., 598 F.2d 1101, cert denied 444 U.S. 840, see also, F.T.C. v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Assn., 493 US ___, 110 S Ct 768).
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.