Eastway Const. Corp. v. Gliedman
| Decision Date | 26 January 1982 |
| Citation | 446 N.Y.S.2d 306,86 A.D.2d 575 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In re Application of EASTWAY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Petitioner-Respondent, For a Judgment etc., v. Anthony GLIEDMAN, etc., Respondent-Appellant, and Harlem Urban Development Corporation, Intervenor-Respondent-Appellant. |
J. L. Forstadt, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.
D. Drueding, New York City, for respondent-appellant.
J. L. Greenup, New York City, for intervenor-respondent-appellant.
Before SANDLER, J. P., and ROSS, CARRO and SILVERMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 30, 1981, which in an Article 78 proceeding granted the petition, annulled respondent's determination disapproving petitioner as a possible contractor for a government-aided housing project, and directed respondent to consent to petitioner as general contractor upon such submission by the project's sponsor, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, and the petition is dismissed.
In connection with a housing project which is to receive both Federal and municipal assistance, the project sponsor, Harlem Urban Development Corporation, inquired of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) whether the petitioner would be acceptable as a possible general contractor for the project. Respondent answered that petitioner was not acceptable because its principals have large arrears on previous loan commitments to the City. It appears that petitioner's principals had been affiliated with thirteen limited partnerships and corporations which had defaulted on mortgages with an aggregate unpaid balance of $7,900,000, as well as on additional payments of approximately $150,000 in real estate taxes and water and sewer charges.
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner sought annulment of this determination and a direction to respondent to consent to petitioner as a possible general contractor.
Special Term granted the relief sought in a memorandum opinion that acknowledged respondent's authority to evaluate the suitability of general contractors in such projects, conceded that its refusal appeared reasonable, but concluded that it was arbitrary in light of recent approvals by respondent of petitioner as a contractor in similar projects.
We disagree, and accordingly reverse the order appealed from and dismiss the petition. Whether or not petitioner should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New York
...Court granting summary judgment in Eastway's favor. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, Eastway Construction Corp. v. Gliedman, 86 A.D.2d 575, 446 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1st Dep.1982). No appeal was perfected to the Court of Appeals because, according to Eastway, it was then in the midst of ......
-
Goodstein Const. Corp. v. Gliedman
...for that of the agency reviewed, if agency action can be supported on any reasonable basis (see Matter of Eastway Construction Corp. v. Gliedman, 86 A.D.2d 575, 446 N.Y.S.2d 306; Matter of Kayfield Construction Corp. v. Morris, 15 A.D.2d 373, 225 N.Y.S.2d It is plain that the procedures req......
-
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New York, s. 735
...and dismissed its petition, holding that the City's policy was a proper exercise of its discretion. See Eastway Constr. Corp. v. Gliedman, 86 A.D.2d 575, 446 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1st Dept.1982). No appeal was perfected to the Court of Appeals, 3 see Eastway Constr. Corp. v. Gliedman, 58 N.Y.2d 972......