From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Electrical Inspectors v. Vil. of Lynbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 2002
293 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-00106

Submitted February 28, 2002.

April 8, 2002.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Village of Lynbrook to convene a hearing pursuant to Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 and to compel it to authorize the petitioners to conduct electrical inspections in the Village, and an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 to be violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 and General Business Law § 340, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 30, 2000, as declared Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 to be violative of General Business Law § 340 and granted that branch of the petition which was to compel the Village of Lynbrook to advertise and evaluate applications from electrical inspection firms and select more than one such firm to conduct electrical inspections and certifications in the Village for the time period specified in the Code of the Village of Lynbrook.

Peter K. Ledwith, Lynbrook, N.Y., for appellants.

Brand, Brand Burke, New York, N.Y. (Ronald C. Burke of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the petition which was to compel the Village of Lynbrook to advertise and evaluate applications from electrical inspection firms and select more than one such firm to conduct electrical inspections and certifications in the Village for the time period specified in the Code of the Village of Lynbrook is denied, and it is declared that Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 does not violate General Business Law § 340.

This appeal is from a judgment which declared, inter alia, that the Village of Lynbrook violated General Business Law § 340 (hereinafter the Donnelly Act), by enacting an amendment to Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 which provides that the Village can appoint one electrical inspection firm for a one-or two-year term after a competitive bidding process. We reverse.

We note that the Village Board of Trustees failed to approve any electrical inspection firm in direct contravention of Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112. As a result, Electrical Inspectors, Inc. (hereinafter Electrical Inspectors) suffered actual and concrete injury in that it was denied the opportunity to act as the Village's inspection firm. Therefore, Electrical Inspector's claims are ripe for judicial review (see Chicago Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113; Church of St. Paul St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510, 519, cert denied 479 U.S. 985).

We reject the Village's contention that Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 is exempt from antitrust challenge under the state action immunity doctrine. The doctrine is not applicable to this matter in that it deals with application of the Sherman Act to state and municipal conduct and not to the application of the Donnelly Act to municipal conduct (see Classic Communications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 956 F. Supp. 896; Town of Hallie v. City of Chippewa Falls, 314 N.W.2d 321; Capital Tel. Co. v. New York Tel. Co., 146 A.D.2d 312, 315).

However, Electrical Inspectors failed to show that "no reasonable basis at all" existed for the challenged portions of the ordinance (see Lighthouse Shores v. Town of Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7, 12). Whether the method chosen to appoint an electrical inspection firm was the best option for the Village is not determinative of the issue of constitutionality. So long as the law is not arbitrary or irrational, "the choice among permissible alternatives is to be made by the Village, not by [the parties] or the courts" (D'Angelo v. Cole, 67 N.Y.2d 65, 69).

Moreover, the possible anticompetitive effects of a limited one- to two-year appointment of an electrical inspection firm do not outweigh the public benefits achieved. Therefore, we find that the challenged portions of Code of the Village of Lynbrook § 112 do not violate the Donnelly Act (see Hertz Corp. v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 121, cert denied 510 U.S. 1111).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Electrical Inspectors v. Vil. of Lynbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 2002
293 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Electrical Inspectors v. Vil. of Lynbrook

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS, INC., respondent, v. VILLAGE OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 8, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 412

Citing Cases

Retired Pub. Emps. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo

Thus, if any state of facts, known or to be assumed, justify the law, the court's power of inquiry ends (In…

N. Oyster Bay Baymen's Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay

General Business Law § 340 prohibits contracts or agreements for monopoly or in restraint of trade. Because…