N.J.D. Electronics, Inc. v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1994
• Citation: 612 N.Y.S.2d 577,205 A.D.2d 323
• Parties: In re Application of N.J.D. ELECTRONICS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 577

612 N.Y.S.2d 577

205 A.D.2d 323

In re Application of N.J.D. ELECTRONICS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, et al Respondents-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 7, 1994.

Before MURPHY, J.P., and CARRO, RUBIN and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered January 26, 1993, which upheld the October 20, 1992 decision of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Panel of Contractor Responsibility that the petitioner was not a responsible bidder, and which denied and dismissed the petition seeking to annul that determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court neither denied petitioner due process nor committed other reversible error in upholding the determination of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Panel of Contractor Responsibility that the petitioner was not a responsible bidder on two contracts for electrical work at hospitals administered by HHC, based upon information revealed, both during HHC's investigation and an independent investigation by the Department of General Services, that petitioner's principal's prior guilty plea in Criminal Court, Kings County, to disorderly conduct, was, in fact, in settlement of a felony charge of attempted bribery in the second degree arising from the petitioner's principal having bribed a City inspector to overlook electrical code violations.

"The courts have long recognized the wide authority vested in municipal agencies to make contract proposals that are required by the public interest. In determining the lowest responsible bidder, 'the municipal agency charged with the function is rightfully concerned with the bidder's responsibility--an elastic word which includes considerations of skill, judgment and integrity.' " (Matter of Positive Transp., Inc. v. City of New York Dept. of Transp., 183 A.D.2d 660, 661, 584 N.Y.S.2d 51 [quoting Abco Bus Co. v. Macchiarola, 75 A.D.2d 831, 833, 427 N.Y.S.2d 876 (Hopkins, J.P., dissenting), rev'd. for reasons stated in dissent, 52 N.Y.2d 938, 437 N.Y.S.2d 967, 419 N.E.2d 870, cert. denied 454 U.S. 822, 102 S.Ct. 107, 70 L.Ed.2d 94]. Courts have therefore upheld as rational agency decisions disqualifying bidders as non-responsible based upon criminal convictions (Matter of Omega Transp. Co. v. Aiello, 52 N.Y.2d 939, 437 N.Y.S.2d 967, 419 N.E.2d 870), criminal indictments (Matter of Zara Constr. Co. v. Cohen, 23 A.D.2d 718, 257 N.Y.S.2d 118), and, as here, the mere investigation of corrupt activities in connection with public contracts (Matter of Konski Engrs. v. Levitt, 69 A.D.2d 940, 942, 415 N.Y.S.2d 509, aff'd 49 N.Y.2d 850, 427 N.Y.S.2d 796, 404 N.E.2d 1337).

The IAS court properly determined that it was neither arbitrary nor capricious for the Panel of Contractor Responsibility to uphold HHC's determination that the petitioner was not a...