In re Tuller Const. Co.
| Citation | 257 N.Y. 206,177 N.E. 421 |
| Parties | In re TULLER CONST. CO. |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1931 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In the matter of the application of the Tuller Construction Company for a peremptory mandamus order directed to William H. Lyon and others, as Sewer Commissioners of Belgrave Sewer District, Town of North Hempstead, Nassa County, N. Y. From an order of the Appellate Division (231 App. Div. 174, 246 N. Y. S. 611), reversing on the law and facts an order of the Special Term, which denied the application, and granting the writ, defendants appeal.
Reversed, and order of the Special Term affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
G. Burchard Smith and James L. Dowsey, both of Mineola, for appellant.
William J. Morris, Jr., of Far Rockaway, for respondent.
The appellants, sewer commissioners, upon opening the bids for sewer construction work, found the bid of the respondent to be $101,515, and the bid of the Gifford Construction Company to be $102,185; the latter being the higher by $670. The statute provides: ‘The commissioners may accept or reject any or all proposals, and when the contract is let it shall be let to the lowest bidder.’ Town Law (Consol. Laws, c. 62) § 234. The commissioners called for financial statements from each bidder and they were submitted. After examination of these statements, the commissioners determined that the bid of the petitioner-respondent, Tuller Construction Company, ‘was not a desirable bid to accept for the best interests of the sewer district because the financial statement of the petitioner did not impress the commissioners favorably,’ and let the contract to the Gifford Construction Company. We think that the commissioners, in so finding, in effect determined that the Tuller Construction Company was not a ‘responsible bidder,’ and consequently that the Gifford Construction Company was ‘the lowest responsible bidder.’ We think that they were justified in making that determination and that they should not be directed by the court to decide otherwise and relet the contract to the Tuller Construction Company.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Ordered accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zara Contracting Co. v. Cohen
...brought by a bidder, with the lawful exercise of discretion vested in the awarding body (Matter of Tuller Construction Co. v. Lyon, 257 N.Y. 206, 177 N.E. 421; Application of Glen Truck Sales & Service, Inc., 31 Misc.2d 1027, 1029, 220 N.Y.S.2d 939, 942; Mtr. of Limitone v. Galgano, 21 Misc......
-
North Country Development Corp. v. Massena Housing Authority
...reviewed, but only to determine if the Authority's action may be supported on any reasonable basis. See In re Tuller Construction Co., 257 N.Y. 206, 177 N.E. 421; Syracuse Intercepting Sewer Board v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 255 N.Y. 288, 174 N.E. 657; Matter of Kayfield Constr......
-
Kayfield Const. Corp. v. Morris
...of Kaelber v. Sahm, 281 App.Div. 980, 120 N.Y.S.2d 566, aff'd, 305 N.Y. 858, 114 N.E.2d 211; Matter of Tuller Construction Co. v. Lyon, 257 N.Y. 206, 177 N.E. Page 516 421. The burden of pleading and proof in connection with a charge of arbitrariness and caprice on the part of the Board was......
-
Gottfried Baking Co. v. Allen, 5
...brought by a bidder, with the lawful exercise of discretion vested in the awarding body (Matter of Tuller Construction Co. v. Lyon, 257 N.Y. 206, 177 N.E. 421; Application of Glen Truck Sales & Service, Inc., 31 Misc.2d 1027, 220 N.Y.S.2d 939, 942; Mtr. of Limitone v. Galgano, 21 Misc.2d 37......