HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC v. HARVEY, ROSE

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC v. HARVEY, ROSE

121 A.D.3d 1513, 993 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

DocketCA 14-00252

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1513 (HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC v. HARVEY, ROSE) 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

HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC v. HARVEY, ROSE, 121 A.D.3d 1513, 993 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*1514 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered September 3, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, to compel respondent New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (Parks) to conduct competitive, public bidding with respect to a public concession license to operate scenic boat tours and to conduct related services on the Niagara River (hereafter, license). Parks had granted the license to respondent Maid of the Mist Corporation (MOTM) in 2002 for a 40-year term, and this proceeding was commenced when Parks and MOTM thereafter sought to amend the provisions of the license. We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in determining that it lacks standing to seek the relief requested (see Albert Elia Bldg. Co. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 54 AD2d 337, 341-342 [1976]). With respect to the substantive merits, however, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate “a ‘clear legal right’ to the relief requested” (Matter of Council of City of N.Y. v Bloomberg, 6 NY3d 380, 388 [2006]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 3.09 does not require competitive, public bidding for the work authorized by the amendment of the license. Contrary to petitioner’s additional contention, we conclude that the amendment was in furtherance of MOTM’s 2002 license and the business conducted thereunder, and the amendment did not “so alter[ ]” the terms, “the essential identity or [the] main purpose of the [2002 license] that it constitute [d] a new undertaking” rendering the work authorized by the amendment subject to competitive, public bidding (Albert Elia Bldg. Co., 54 AD2d at 343).

Present — Scudder, RJ., Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.

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

*1514 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered September 3, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, to compel respondent New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (Parks) to conduct competitive, public bidding with respect to a public concession license to operate scenic boat tours and to conduct related services on the Niagara River (hereafter, license). Parks had granted the license to respondent Maid of the Mist Corporation (MOTM) in 2002 for a 40-year term, and this proceeding was commenced when Parks and MOTM thereafter sought to amend the provisions of the license. We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in determining that it lacks standing to seek the relief requested (see Albert Elia Bldg. Co. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 54 AD2d 337, 341-342 [1976]). With respect to the substantive merits, however, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate “a ‘clear legal right’ to the relief requested” (Matter of Council of City of N.Y. v Bloomberg, 6 NY3d 380, 388 [2006]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 3.09 does not require competitive, public bidding for the work authorized by the amendment of the license. Contrary to petitioner’s additional contention, we conclude that the amendment was in furtherance of MOTM’s 2002 license and the business conducted thereunder, and the amendment did not “so alter[ ]” the terms, “the essential identity or [the] main purpose of the [2002 license] that it constitute [d] a new undertaking” rendering the work authorized by the amendment subject to competitive, public bidding (Albert Elia Bldg. Co., 54 AD2d at 343).

Present — Scudder, RJ., Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 1513, 993 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornblower-yachts-llc-v-harvey-rose-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack