A.I. Smith of Long Island, Inc. v. City of Long Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.I. Smith of Long Island, Inc. v. City of Long Beach

158 A.D.2d 454, 551 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1243

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 454 (A.I. Smith of Long Island, Inc. v. City of Long Beach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.I. Smith of Long Island, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 158 A.D.2d 454, 551 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[455]*455The determination by the respondent City of Long Beach rejecting the bid package submitted by the petitioner (which failed to include a detailed declaration of the bidder’s qualifications including, inter alia, statements as to the bidding firm’s experience and performance history, current and recently completed contracts and the amounts thereof, and bank references) on the basis that it substantially deviated from bid specifications, was supported by a rational basis and, hence, will not be disturbed on review (see, Matter of A & S Transp. Co. v County of Nassau, 154 AD2d 456; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., 62 AD2d 28, affd 46 NY2d 960, on opn at App Div; Matter of C. K. Rehner, Inc. v City of New York, 106 AD2d 268).

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, in view of the significance of the omission from its bid package, the municipality could not, and in fact, did not, waive the defect as a "mere irregularity” (see, Matter of Varsity Tr. v Board of Educ., 130 AD2d 581, 582; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., supra).

Finally, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim of collusion. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[455]*455The determination by the respondent City of Long Beach rejecting the bid package submitted by the petitioner (which failed to include a detailed declaration of the bidder’s qualifications including, inter alia, statements as to the bidding firm’s experience and performance history, current and recently completed contracts and the amounts thereof, and bank references) on the basis that it substantially deviated from bid specifications, was supported by a rational basis and, hence, will not be disturbed on review (see, Matter of A & S Transp. Co. v County of Nassau, 154 AD2d 456; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., 62 AD2d 28, affd 46 NY2d 960, on opn at App Div; Matter of C. K. Rehner, Inc. v City of New York, 106 AD2d 268).

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, in view of the significance of the omission from its bid package, the municipality could not, and in fact, did not, waive the defect as a "mere irregularity” (see, Matter of Varsity Tr. v Board of Educ., 130 AD2d 581, 582; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., supra).

Finally, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim of collusion. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 454, 551 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ai-smith-of-long-island-inc-v-city-of-long-beach-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack