GVC II, Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GVC II, Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

22 A.D.3d 299, 804 N.Y.S.2d 241

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

DecidedOctober 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 299 (GVC II, Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board) 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

GVC II, Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board, 22 A.D.3d 299, 804 N.Y.S.2d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which granted the petition challenging cancellation of petitioner’s contract with respondent Department of Transportation and remanded the matter to respondent Contract Dispute Resolution Board, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The court’s order gave the City and its agency each and every element of the relief they sought. Accordingly, the municipal respondents were not aggrieved within the meaning of CFLR 5511 (see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539 [1983]).

The standard to apply in deciding on the propriety of the contract’s termination is with the Board in the first instance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered herein on December 21, 2004 (13 AD3d 254 [2004]) is hereby recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which granted the petition challenging cancellation of petitioner’s contract with respondent Department of Transportation and remanded the matter to respondent Contract Dispute Resolution Board, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The court’s order gave the City and its agency each and every element of the relief they sought. Accordingly, the municipal respondents were not aggrieved within the meaning of CFLR 5511 (see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539 [1983]).

The standard to apply in deciding on the propriety of the contract’s termination is with the Board in the first instance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered herein on December 21, 2004 (13 AD3d 254 [2004]) is hereby recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 299, 804 N.Y.S.2d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gvc-ii-inc-v-contract-dispute-resolution-board-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack