GFI-Genfare v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GFI-Genfare v. New York City Transit Authority

184 A.D.2d 334, 584 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8112

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

DecidedJune 16, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 334 (GFI-Genfare v. New York City Transit 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

GFI-Genfare v. New York City Transit Authority, 184 A.D.2d 334, 584 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered March 4, 1992, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Authorities’ determination awarding a contract for an automatic fare collection system to respondents Cubic Corporation and Cubic Automatic Revenue Collection Group, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the gist of petitioner’s grievance is with its exclusion from the proposal process, communicated to it in the letter dated December 10, 1990 from respondent Transit Authority’s General Contracts Manager advising that any bid it might make would not be considered. As the IAS court found, the impact of this unambiguous letter in excluding petitioner from further participation in the process was certain (Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714, 716), and thus its transmission to petitioner commenced the four-month period of limitations (CPLR 217). The time limitation was not tolled by petitioner’s requests for reconsideration (see, Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 974, 976, rearg denied 61 NY2d 905, cert denied 469 US 823; Matter of Dominick Dan Alonzo, Inc. v Levitt, 73 AD2d 741, 742), nor by the fact that the Authorities had yet to make a final determination as to whom should be given the contract (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, supra; Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered March 4, 1992, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Authorities’ determination awarding a contract for an automatic fare collection system to respondents Cubic Corporation and Cubic Automatic Revenue Collection Group, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the gist of petitioner’s grievance is with its exclusion from the proposal process, communicated to it in the letter dated December 10, 1990 from respondent Transit Authority’s General Contracts Manager advising that any bid it might make would not be considered. As the IAS court found, the impact of this unambiguous letter in excluding petitioner from further participation in the process was certain (Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714, 716), and thus its transmission to petitioner commenced the four-month period of limitations (CPLR 217). The time limitation was not tolled by petitioner’s requests for reconsideration (see, Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 974, 976, rearg denied 61 NY2d 905, cert denied 469 US 823; Matter of Dominick Dan Alonzo, Inc. v Levitt, 73 AD2d 741, 742), nor by the fact that the Authorities had yet to make a final determination as to whom should be given the contract (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, supra; Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 334, 584 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gfi-genfare-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack