In re Huff Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Huff Enterprises, Inc.

205 A.D.2d 378, 613 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6313

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

DecidedJune 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 378 (In re Huff Enterprises, Inc.) 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

In re Huff Enterprises, Inc., 205 A.D.2d 378, 613 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered May 14, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application to vacate and annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request to withdraw its bid to rehabilitate two properties owned by the City, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to submit adequate evidence to show that the alleged unilateral mistake was due to arithmetical or clerical error, respondent properly refused petitioner’s request to withdraw its bid (see, Matter of G & R Elec. Contrs. v Egan, 85 AD2d 191, 193).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, are meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered May 14, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application to vacate and annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request to withdraw its bid to rehabilitate two properties owned by the City, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to submit adequate evidence to show that the alleged unilateral mistake was due to arithmetical or clerical error, respondent properly refused petitioner’s request to withdraw its bid (see, Matter of G & R Elec. Contrs. v Egan, 85 AD2d 191, 193).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, are meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 378, 613 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-huff-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack