Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park
| Decision Date | 10 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A--48,A--48 |
| Parties | ASBURY PARK PRESS, Inc., and Wayne D. McMurray, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a municipal corporation, and Beach Amusement Company, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
William Novogrod, Asbury Park, argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants (Goldstein & Novogrod, Asbury Park, attorneys; William Miller, Princeton, on the brief).
John E. Toolan, Perth Amboy, argued the cause for the defendant-respondent Beach Amusement Company (Toolan, Haney & Romond, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
Sidney J. Meistrich, Asbury Park, argued the cause for the defendant-respondent City of Asbury Park.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In Asbury Park Press v. City of Asbury Park, 19 N.J. 183, 115 A.2d 564 (1955), this court held that the leasing of beachfront properties of municipalities bordering the Atlantic Ocean could only be accomplished through advertisement and competitive bidding. R.S. 40:61--36 et seq., N.J.S.A. The instant case presents two of the same antagonists but the dispute centers upon whether the spirit and purpose of the bidding law was subverted or fulfilled.
Defendant Beach Amusement Company has been a tenant of the city on one of its prominent ocean properties since 1932. In 1944 the leased area was substantially increased and now represents the largest property which the city leases except for its Convention Hall. The Beach Company maintains stores, a merry-go-round and a large number of amusement devices, and is currently operating under a four-year lease which expires December 31, 1956.
It appears that the city in the past has attended to new leases in the fall of the year of expiration. Nevertheless, on December 3, 1955 the Beach Company wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council of Asbury Park requesting that 'immediate action' be taken to advertise and receive bids upon a lease (commencing January 1, 1957) for the premises in question. The urgency was based upon the desire of the Beach Company to secure its present position before investing in 'thousands of dollars of new equipment' (said to be an annual necessity) and a 'very expensive' air cooling system.
The request was taken under advisement and on December 27 the city council passed a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids. On December 29 the advertisement appeared in the Asbury Park Press. Bids were to be received on January 9 following, at 11 A.M. Specifications were available in the meantime from the city clerk. The right to reject any bid was reserved.
The sole bid was received from the Beach Amusement Company. Two other persons called for specifications but we know nothing more of this unexplored fact. The Beach Company offered to pay a rental of $37,500 annually, which represented an increase of $3,500 over its present rental. The city council deferred action on the sole bid at its meeting of January 10, 1956, but on January 24 the offer was accepted by resolution.
The complaint charged a frustration of the bidding laws by the city in awarding the lease to the Beach Company and asked that it be declared void. The action of the city was alleged abusive of the bidding laws and municipal discretion in several alleged respects. The city offices were closed on five days of the 11-day period between the advertisement and receipt of bids, thus unduly restricting prospective bidders from obtaining the specifications and a copy of the lease; the length of time between the public advertisement and receipt of bids (ten days--the statutory minimum) did not give prospective bidders a sufficient opportunity to seriously consider an investment of such proportion; the unannounced departure from past custom of awarding leases in the fall of the year of expiration served to chill the potential market.
Plaintiffs took depositions of the mayor, city manager and one of the councilmen. Defendants moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavits and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion therefor. The trial court granted the former and denied the latter, holding that in the absence of a charge of dishonesty, fraud, bad faith or wilful lack of discretion the municipal action could not be attacked. He found no violation of the bidding statute. R.S. 40:61--39 and 40, N.J.S.A. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Superior Court, Appellant Division, and we certified the cause prior to a review below.
It would not have been wholly unreasonable to anticipate that the City of Asbury Park, following this court's decision in the Asbury Park Press case, supra, would have taken steps to achieve the real purpose and spirit of the bidding laws rather than proceed with a mere technical compliance, a lip service to form only and putting to one side any calculated endeavor to encourage competitive bidding which would have enhanced the possibility of obtaining the best return on public-owned property.
The bidding laws, whether for the purchase of goods and service or for the lease of municipal property, lay down a principle of the market place designed to be in the best interests of the public--competition. Competition cannot exist in a vacuum and therefore the one aim of every municipality in the fulfillment of the bidding laws should be to encourage competition. Paterson Contracting Co. v. City of Hackensack, 99 N.J.L. 260, 264, 122 A. 741 (E. & A. 1923). This is a state policy, Sellitto v. Cedar Grove Township, 133 N.J.L. 41, 42, 42 A.2d 383 (Sup.Ct.1945), announced by statute and required of every municipality which it affects.
Of course, one cannot be so pretentious as to predict what might have been. Yet the courts have always been responsive to situations where the policy of the statute has obviously been thwarted. For instance, ambiguous specifications may stifle the competitive element, Tice v. Commissioners of City of Long Branch, 98 N.J.L. 214, 119 A. 25 (E. & A.1922); Waszen v. City of Atlantic City, 1 N.J. 272, 63 A.2d 255 (1949), and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton Intern., Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America
...a plenary trial on disputed issues of fact. O'Keeffe v. Snyder, 83 N.J. 478, 487, 416 A.2d 862 (1980); Asbury Park Press v. City of Asbury Park, 23 N.J. 50, 56, 127 A.2d 401 (1956). But when there is no material issue of fact and one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summa......
-
Greenberg v. Fornicola
...40:61--36 to 40. Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park, 19 N.J. 183, 115 A.2d 564 (1955); Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park, 23 N.J. 50, 127 A.2d 401 (1956). The city also communicated directly with leading restaurant operators to excite their interest in the The initi......
-
Jersey City Merchants Council v. Jersey City
...May, 19 N.J. 493, 501, 117 a.2d 585 (1955), affirming 34 N.J.Super. 67, 111 A.2d 435 (Law Div.1954); Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Asbury Park, 23 N.J. 50, 53--54, 127 A.2d 401 (1956), where our highest court noted that the absence of corrupt motive does not preclude the judicial remedy; munic......
-
Arthur Venneri Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Paterson, A--88
...turn works to protect the public coffers and prevent chicanery and fraud in public office. See e.g., Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park, 23 N.J. 50, 54, 127 A.2d 401 (1956); Hillside Tp., Union County v. Sternin, 25 N.J. 317, 322, 136 A.2d 265 (1957). Arbitrary rejection of favo......