Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc. v. Boardman
| Decision Date | 14 December 1998 |
| Citation | 681 N.Y.S.2d 594,256 A.D.2d 405 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,036 In the Matter of BARRIER MOTOR FUELS, INC., Appellant, v. Joseph BOARDMAN, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jeffrey S. Shumejda, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (John W. McConnell and Katharine Demgen of counsel), for respondents.
MILLER, J.P., and COPERTINO, THOMPSON and FRIEDMANN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Regional Director of the New York State Department of Transportation to breach a contract with the petitioner to restore and reopen two service stations, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered December 19, 1997, which granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a contract action brought against a State agency.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Between 1990 and 1994, the petitioner Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc. (hereinafter Barrier), negotiated with the New York State Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) to lease two State-owned gasoline stations on the Saw Mill River Parkway, where it would construct and operate two new service stations. Both sides went to considerable pre-construction expense, and building was about to begin in the spring of 1997, when the Regional Director of DOT, in response to pressure from local citizens groups and politicians, abruptly put the two projects "on hold". Barrier then brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging that the State's decision to breach its contract with Barrier was "arbitrary and capricious" (i.e., undertaken solely to allay "irrational" public hostility), and a violation of Barrier's due process rights (because Barrier had not been granted a hearing). Upon the respondents' motion, the court dismissed the petition, finding that Barrier's claim was more properly one for breach of contract. We agree.
It is well established that "[w]hen the damage allegedly sustained arises from a breach of the contract by a public official or governmental body, then the claim must be resolved through the application of traditional rules of contract law" (Abiele Contr. v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 N.Y.2d 1, 7-8, 666 N.Y.S.2d 970, 689 N.E.2d 864; see also, Matter of Goodstein Constr. Corp. v. Gliedman, 117 A.D.2d 170, 176, 502 N.Y.S.2d 136, affd. 69 N.Y.2d 930, 516 N.Y.S.2d 655, 509 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Stone
...relief, see Koerner v. State, 62 N.Y.2d 442, 449, 478 N.Y.S.2d 584, 587, 467 N.E.2d 232 (1984); Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc. v. Boardman, 256 A.D.2d 405, 681 N.Y.S.2d 594, 595 (2d Dep't 1998). 10. In so ruling, the Appellate Division implicitly rejected Special Term's reliance on thirdparty ac......
-
Gordon v. City of N.Y.
...damages and specific performance "quintessential 'breach of contract allegations'" (quoting In re Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.,256 A.D.2d 405, 405-06, 681 N.Y.S.2d 594, 595 (2d Dep't 1998)); In re Barrier Motor Fuels, 256 A.D.2d at 405-06, 681 N.Y.S.2d at 595 ("It is well established that '[w]......
-
Monroe Equities, LLC v. N.Y. State
...90 A.D.2d 738, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799, affd.58 N.Y.2d 949, 460 N.Y.S.2d 533, 447 N.E.2d 82; cf. Matter of Barrier Motor Fuels v. Boardman, 256 A.D.2d 405, 405–406, 681 N.Y.S.2d 594). The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that bran......
-
Steve's Star Serv. v. County of Rockland
...in contract is the appropriate remedy" (Abiele Contr. v. New York City School Constr. Auth., supra; see also, Matter of Barrier Motor Fuels v. Boardman, 256 A.D.2d 405). Here, since the essence of Steve's Star's claim against the appellants is predicated upon their alleged breach of contrac......