A&J Construction Co. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A&J Construction Co. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13815

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 182 (A&J Construction Co. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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&J Construction Co. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1998, which denied petitioner contractor’s application to annul respondent City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s determination revoking petitioner’s prequalified status for general contractor work with respondent’s Maintenance Division, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by ample evidence of petitioner’s substandard workmanship and improper behavior by its employees. Petitioner’s due process claims are unpreserved (see, Matter of Dowling v Holland, 245 AD2d 167, 170), and in any event without merit (compare, NY City Charter § 324 [b] [procedures for appealing revocation of prequalified status to the agency head or Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings], with § 335 [procedures for evidentiary hearing on debarment]; see, Smith Elec. Contrs. v Fire Dept., 176 AD2d 149; Romano Enters, v New York City Dept. of Transp., 254 AD2d 233). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1998, which denied petitioner contractor’s application to annul respondent City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s determination revoking petitioner’s prequalified status for general contractor work with respondent’s Maintenance Division, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by ample evidence of petitioner’s substandard workmanship and improper behavior by its employees. Petitioner’s due process claims are unpreserved (see, Matter of Dowling v Holland, 245 AD2d 167, 170), and in any event without merit (compare, NY City Charter § 324 [b] [procedures for appealing revocation of prequalified status to the agency head or Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings], with § 335 [procedures for evidentiary hearing on debarment]; see, Smith Elec. Contrs. v Fire Dept., 176 AD2d 149; Romano Enters, v New York City Dept. of Transp., 254 AD2d 233). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aj-construction-co-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack