City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1982 |
| Citation | 87 A.D.2d 984,451 N.Y.S.2d 945 |
| Parties | , 5 Ed. Law Rep. 216 The CITY OF SYRACUSE, Respondent, v. SARKISIAN BROTHERS, INC. and The Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ball & McDonough, P.C. by Alan Pope, Binghamton, for appellants.
David M. Garber, Corp. Counsel by Robert Jenkins, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before SIMONS, J. P., and HANCOCK, DOERR, DENMAN and SCHNEPP, JJ.
In response to plaintiff's advertisement for bids in connection with the construction of a junior high school, defendant Sarkisian Brothers, Inc. prepared a preliminary bid proposal in accordance with the plans and specifications of plaintiff. Before the bid was submitted, Sarkisian determined that it would be able to reduce its bid by $21,300.00. In transposing this reduction from its work sheet to the bid proposal, however, the sum of $213,000.00 was inadvertently deducted instead of $21,300.00, resulting in a bid on the job of $3,547,000.00, whereas its intended bid was $3,738,700.00. On the same day the bids were submitted and opened, Sarkisian discovered its error and notified plaintiff and requested that its bid be withdrawn. Plaintiff thereupon requested the bidder's work sheets which were promptly forwarded. Almost three weeks after the bid submission and notification of the error, plaintiff awarded the contract to Sarkisian Brothers, Inc. based upon its erroneous bid. The contractor declined to perform and plaintiff readvertised the job and awarded a contract in an amount closely approximating the bid which Sarkisian had intended to submit. This action seeking money damages and bond forfeiture ensued. Defendants moved for summary judgment rescinding the contract which motion was denied by Special Term. We reverse.
The clerical mistake made by defendant contractor was excusable and material and of such an amount as to make enforcement of the contract unconscionable. The error was subject to objective determination by comparing the work sheets with the bid proposal.
The criteria for rescission of a contract as is herein involved has been stated in Balaban-Gordon Co. v. Brighton Sewer District No. 2, 41 A.D.2d 246, 247, 342 N.Y.S.2d 435: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powder Horn Constructors, Inc. v. City of Florence
...375 A.2d 237 (1977); Mississippi State Bldg. Comm'n v. Becknell Constr., Inc., 329 So.2d 57 (Miss.1976); City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Bros., Inc., 87 A.D.2d 984, 451 N.Y.S.2d 945, aff'd, 57 N.Y.2d 618, 454 N.Y.S.2d 71, 439 N.E.2d 880 (1982); Arcon Constr. Co. v. State, 314 N.W.2d 303 (S.D.......
-
In re Ual Corp.
...558, 215 A.2d 702, 703-04 (1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541, 543-44 (Fla.1965); City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Brothers, Inc., 87 A.D.2d 984, 451 N.Y.S.2d 945 (1982); II. Farnsworth, supra, § 9.4, pp. 614-15. As succinctly explained in Donovan v. RRL Corp., supra, 109 C......
-
Sinram-Marnis Oil Co., Inc. v. City of New York, SINRAM-MARNIS
...107 A.D.2d 1010, 486 N.Y.S.2d 535, revd. on other grounds 66 N.Y.2d 341, 497 N.Y.S.2d 321, 488 N.E.2d 67; City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Brothers, Inc., 87 A.D.2d 984, 451 N.Y.S.2d 945, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 618, 454 N.Y.S.2d 71, 439 N.E.2d 880; Balaban-Gordon Company, Inc. v. Brighton Sewer Distr......
-
Marana Unified School Dist. No. 6 v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 2
...Dalles, 300 F.Supp. 442 (D.Or.1969); Connecticut v. F.H. McGraw & Co., 41 F.Supp. 369 (D.Conn.1941); City of Syracuse v. Sarkisian Brothers, Inc., 87 A.D.2d 984, 451 N.Y.S.2d 945 (1982); Arcon Construction Co. v. State Department of Transportation, 314 N.W.2d 303 (S.D.1982); Wil-Fred's Inc.......