15 Cited authorities

  1. Riverkeeper v. Planning Bd.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9064 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 149. Argued October 18, 2007. Decided November 19, 2007. APPEAL, in the first three above-entitled proceedings, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered August 8, 2006. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, three judgments (one as to each proceeding) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Francis A. Nicolai, J.; op 2003 NY Slip Op 50776[U] [Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town

  2. Acme Bus Corp v. Bd. of Educ

    91 N.Y.2d 51 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 47 times
    Noting local board's discretion in selecting contractors
  3. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. Town of Southeast

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4765 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 24 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"
  4. Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Ass'n v. New York City Economic Development Corp.

    36 A.D.3d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 19 times

    November 9, 2006. APPEAL from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered June 6, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order and judgment annulled the conditional designation of respondent Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc. as lessee of 155 Food Center Drive, Hunts Point, and enjoined the municipal respondents from entering into a lease for the premises until respondent New York City Economic Development Corporation and respondent City

  5. Matter of Frick v. Bahou

    56 N.Y.2d 777 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 52 times

    Decided May 18, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, LAWRENCE E. KAHN, J. Ralph W. Fusco for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( John Q. Driscoll of counsel), for respondents. On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [b]), order reversed, without costs, and judgment of Special Term reinstated. Respondents' grading of the examination was in contravention of the respondent

  6. In re of Hungerford Terry v. Suffolk County

    12 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 15 times
    Contrasting "material" noncompliance with "technical noncompliance"
  7. Accadia Site Contracting, Inc. v. Caruana

    96 A.D.3d 1630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

    2012-06-15 In the Matter of ACCADIA SITE CONTRACTING, INC., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony F. CARUANA, Supervisor, Town of Tonawanda, Members of Town of Tonawanda Board, In their Official Capacities, Yarussi Construction, Inc., and Concrete Applied Technologies, Inc., Respondents–Respondents. Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (Jeffrey F. Reina of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens LLP, Buffalo (Patricia Gillen of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent Concrete

  8. Hunts Point Coop. v. N.Y.C

    13 Misc. 3d 988 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    No. 6647/2006. June 2, 2006. Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, New York City ( Randy M. Mastro and Cynthia S. Arato of counsel), for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City ( Terri Feinstein Sasanow of counsel), for New York City Economic Development Corporation and others, respondents. Phillips Nizer LLP, New York City ( Helen Davis Chaitman of counsel), for Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT LUCY BILLINGS, J. I. Background Petitioner Hunts Point Terminal

  9. Cataract v. Town Bd. of Newfane

    423 N.E.2d 390 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 23 times
    In Matter of Cataract Disposal v Town Bd. (53 N.Y.2d 266) the court stated (at p 272): "A minor variation from the terms of an advertisement for bids should be considered material only when it would impair the interests of the contracting public authority or place some of the bidders at a competitive disadvantage (Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd. of Williamson, 62 A.D.2d 28, affd 46 N.Y.2d 960)."
  10. Matter of Brooks v. Forsythe

    189 A.D.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    March 4, 1993 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County, Joseph Harris, J. Hinman, Straub, Pigors Manning, P.C., Albany (William P. Golderman of counsel), for appellants. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General, Albany (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan and Peter G. Crary of counsel), for respondent. HARVEY, J. Petitioners are past or present commissioned officers and one Senior Investigator of the Division of State Police. Pursuant to the terms of their collective bargaining agreements, petitioners receive an

  11. Section 156.12 - Transportation contracts awarded through a request for proposals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 156.12   Cited 2 times

    (a) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of subdivision 14 of section 305 of the Education Law, all contracts for the transportation of pupils which are subject to the competitive bidding requirements of General Municipal Law shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or through an evaluation of proposals submitted in response to a request for proposals by a board of education. (b) When a board of education elects to award a contract through an evaluation of proposals in response to

  12. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation