Mid City Elec. Corp. v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

Decision Date15 March 2017
Parties In re MID CITY ELECTRICAL CORP., Petitioner–Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al., Respondents–Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Charles E. Williams, III of counsel), for appellant.

Helene Fromm, New York (Mary Fisher Bernet of counsel), for Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Thomas F. Prendergast, respondents.

Sajaa Ahmed, New York, for Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Patrick J. Foye, respondents.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for New York State Department of Transportation and Matthew J. Driscoll, respondents.

David J. State, Buffalo, for Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority and Kimberley A. Minkel, respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 24, 2016, denying the petition to annul a determination of the New York State Unified Certification Program, dated February 12, 2016, which removed petitioner's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise certification, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to its contention, petitioner was afforded due process (see Matter of Beck–Nichols v. Bianco, 20 N.Y.3d 540, 559, 964 N.Y.S.2d 456, 987 N.E.2d 233 [2013] ; see also Matter of Daxor Corp. v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 90 N.Y.2d 89, 98, 659 N.Y.S.2d 189, 681 N.E.2d 356 [1997], cert. denied 523 U.S. 1074, 118 S.Ct. 1516, 140 L.Ed.2d 669 [1998] ). Thus, it cannot avoid the consequences of its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies (see Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d 560 [1978] ; see 49 CFR 26.87 [g]; 26.89).

SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mid City Elec. Corp. v. Peckar & Abramson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 2021
    ...not violated, and that Mid City did not appeal NYSUCP's decision to USDOT, thereby failing to exhaust its administrative remedies (see Mid City Elec. Corp, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Sup Ct, NY County, May 23, 2016, Mendez J., index No. 100572/16; NYSCEF Doc No. 16, annexed as exhibit ......
  • Mid City Electrical Corporation v. Peckar & Abramson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 Marzo 2023
    ...dismissing that proceeding was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department (see Matter of Mid City Elec. Corp. v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 148 A.D.3d 497, 498, 48 N.Y.S.3d 580 ).The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against th......
  • Burkha Assets LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 15 Marzo 2017
    ... ... Ken Maguire & Associates PLLC, Garden City (Katherine Maguire of counsel), for ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT