Opinion
10182 Index 101036/17
10-24-2019
In re TYCOON CONSTRUCTION CORP., Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Appellant.
Kelly D. MacNeal, General Counsel, New York (Lauren L. Esposito of counsel), for appellant. Canfield Ruggiero, LLP, Garden City (David J. Canfield of counsel), for respondent.
Kelly D. MacNeal, General Counsel, New York (Lauren L. Esposito of counsel), for appellant.
Canfield Ruggiero, LLP, Garden City (David J. Canfield of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered July 10, 2018, granting the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent New York City Housing Authority's (N.Y.CHA) determination, dated March 27, 2017, which found petitioner in default of a contract between petitioner and NYCHA, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
After complaining about alleged electrical deficiencies and informing petitioner that it had until the end of the contract period to correct them, NYCHA cited safety concerns related to the alleged electrical deficiencies as a basis for requiring petitioner to fix the deficiencies within two days, and declared petitioner in default when it did not meet that two-day deadline. The article 78 court correctly granted the petition to annul NYCHA's action as it lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Ward v. City of Long Beach , 88 A.D.3d 734, 930 N.Y.S.2d 885 [2d Dept.2011], affd 20 N.Y.3d 1042, 962 N.Y.S.2d 587, 985 N.E.2d 898 [2013] ).
Although NYCHA identified alleged deficiencies in petitioner's work, there was no basis for NYCHA to conclude that petitioner had unnecessarily delayed work, refused to supply enough properly skilled workers or materials to complete the work, or was either unwilling or unable to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, as extended by the parties (cf. Matter of Clover Constr. Consultants, Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth. , 44 A.D.3d 654, 655, 841 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2d Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 818, 852 N.Y.S.2d 14, 881 N.E.2d 1201 [2008] ; Matter of R.C. 27th Ave. Realty Corp. v. City of New York , 278 A.D.2d 142, 142–43, 717 N.Y.S.2d 594 [1st Dept. 2000] ).
We have considered NYCHA's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.