Gilston Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Popolizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilston Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Popolizio

169 A.D.2d 583, 564 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 572

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 583 (Gilston Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Popolizio) 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

Gilston Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Popolizio, 169 A.D.2d 583, 564 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), entered December 21, 1989, which, inter alia, denied and dismissed the petition and granted the cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner submitted a bid, which was accepted by the respondent Housing Authority, to upgrade electrical installation at Jackson houses. Shortly after the bid was accepted, petitioner notified the Housing Authority that it had made an error, but nevertheless delayed some three months before it requested to be released from its bid, the same day this proceeding was commenced.

Respondent’s refusal to permit petitioner to withdraw its bid was not arbitrary or capricious. (Matter of Dierks Heating Co. v Egan, 115 AD2d 836.) The result is the same whether or not certain reply papers are considered. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), entered December 21, 1989, which, inter alia, denied and dismissed the petition and granted the cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner submitted a bid, which was accepted by the respondent Housing Authority, to upgrade electrical installation at Jackson houses. Shortly after the bid was accepted, petitioner notified the Housing Authority that it had made an error, but nevertheless delayed some three months before it requested to be released from its bid, the same day this proceeding was commenced.

Respondent’s refusal to permit petitioner to withdraw its bid was not arbitrary or capricious. (Matter of Dierks Heating Co. v Egan, 115 AD2d 836.) The result is the same whether or not certain reply papers are considered. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 583, 564 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilston-electrical-contracting-corp-v-popolizio-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack