Christ Gatzonis Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christ Gatzonis Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority

297 A.D.2d 272, 745 N.Y.2d 914, 745 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791

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

DecidedAugust 5, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 272 (Christ Gatzonis Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority) 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

Christ Gatzonis Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority, 297 A.D.2d 272, 745 N.Y.2d 914, 745 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

It is well established that contracts procured through fraudulent and collusive bidding are void as against public policy, and where work is done pursuant to such illegal municipal contracts, no recovery may be had by the vendor, either on the contract or in quantum meruit, and the municipality can recover from the vendor all amounts paid under such contracts (see S.T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300, 305; Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 NY2d 187, 193). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is no issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff engaged in a bid-rigging and bribery scheme. Thus, the defendant was entitled to rescind the contracts at issue and seek recoupment for moneys already paid under such contracts (see D’Angelo v Cole, 67 NY2d 65, 70; Prote Contr. Co. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 248 AD2d 693, 696).

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment even though the motion was not made within the time constraints of the court’s preliminary conference order and the parties’ subsequent so-ordered stipulation (see Maravalli v Home Depot U.S.A, 266 AD2d 437).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Townes, JJ., concur.

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

It is well established that contracts procured through fraudulent and collusive bidding are void as against public policy, and where work is done pursuant to such illegal municipal contracts, no recovery may be had by the vendor, either on the contract or in quantum meruit, and the municipality can recover from the vendor all amounts paid under such contracts (see S.T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300, 305; Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 NY2d 187, 193). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is no issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff engaged in a bid-rigging and bribery scheme. Thus, the defendant was entitled to rescind the contracts at issue and seek recoupment for moneys already paid under such contracts (see D’Angelo v Cole, 67 NY2d 65, 70; Prote Contr. Co. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 248 AD2d 693, 696).

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment even though the motion was not made within the time constraints of the court’s preliminary conference order and the parties’ subsequent so-ordered stipulation (see Maravalli v Home Depot U.S.A, 266 AD2d 437).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 272, 745 N.Y.2d 914, 745 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christ-gatzonis-electrical-contractor-inc-v-new-york-city-school-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack