J. B. Lyon Co. v. Morris

144 Misc. 9
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 Misc. 9 (J. B. Lyon Co. v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J. B. Lyon Co. v. Morris, 144 Misc. 9 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Opinion

Staley, J.

In June, 1931, the State Division of Standards and Purchase received proposals for department printing for the ensuing [10]*10year beginning July 1, 1931. This printing was classified according to these proposals in seventeen groups, and the contract therefor was awarded to the petitioner for eight groups, to the Burland Printing Company for six groups, and the remaining three groups were awarded to other contractors.

The contract to the Burland Printing Company was assigned and transferred to the petitioner herein in February, 1932, thereby giving the petitioner the contract for fourteen groups of the department printing.

The contracts of the petitioner provided for the performance of all the printing work and the furnishing of all the printed supplies and material in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the specification and proposal.

The specification and proposal, made a part of the contract, expressly states that department printing “ includes the printing and furnishing of blanks, circulars, reports, pamphlets, bulletins, envelopes, letters and note-heads, and all other kinds of printed matter and materials except such as are exempt by law, or such as are defined by the Printing Law as legislative printing or the printing of the Session Laws.” Paragraph 12 of the specification and proposal provides that each bidder whose proposal is accepted will be required to deliver all printed materials of the kind which it is agreed to furnish which may be ordered for use by said departments and institutions of the State during the contract term. The printed material will be ordered from time to time in such quantities as may be needed. The statements as to quantities contained in the specifications and proposals are tabulated from the estimates made by departments and institutions and are given for information and to afford a basis of comparing and tabulating bids only, and will not relieve the State of New York of its obligation to order from the contractor all printed material that may be needed and of the kind fairly to be comprehended within the printing covered by the contract, and shall not, in any case, relieve the contractor of the obligation to fill all such orders for printed material which it agreed to furnish.”

Detail for the bidding upon the work to be furnished under each group is comprehensive; some, groups being general in character and others relating to the details of described work for designated departments.

The Division of Standards and Purchase on May 11, 1932, received proposals under specifications therefor for election supplies, which the Department of State is required by section 76 of the Election Law (as amd. by Laws of 1923, chap. 804) to furnish to the boards of election throughout the State. These supplies under [11]*11the proposals are required to be delivered on or before June 30, 1932, and consist of the printed material required to be furnished for the conduct of primary and general elections, including the blanks and books for the registration of voters, the tallying and canvass of votes, and the blanks and forms necessary to meet the requirements of law in relation to elections.

The particular proposal as issued by the Superintendent of Standards and Purchase requires each proposal, if accepted, to constitute a contract to furnish all of the printed material described.”

The petitioner herein seeks an order of mandamus commanding the Superintendent of the Division of Standards and Purchase and the Secretary of State to deliver to it the copy or material from which to print the election supplies as described in the specification and proposal for election supplies for the Department of State, on the ground that such work is included wholly or in part within the contracts now held by petitioner for the department printing. Such order is resisted by the State on the theory that the work of printing and furnishing the election supplies is not wholly or partly within the contracts ’of petitioner and that such work does not come within department printing as defined by the State Printing Law.

The issue is complicated only because of the practices and interpretations of the past, but clear and certain as to the intent and meaning of the statutes and contracts which control the present power and duty of the State and its rights and responsibilities thereunder.

Under the State Printing Law, public printing is classified in three parts — legislative printing, department printing and the printing of the Session Laws. Department printing is declared to include all printing for the various offices, institutions and departments of the state, * * *.” (State Printing Law, § 3, as amd. by Laws of 1922, chap. 643.)

The duty is placed upon the Division of Standards and Purchase, after public notice, to let to the lowest bidder “ all contracts for the work embraced in the three several parts of this chapter defined, except printing done pursuant to law in the prisons of the State, in the State charitable and benevolent institutions for the benefit of such institutions, or by the board or commission having fiscal control of such institutions, the printing of examination question papers or printing done for the education department or the schools under its jurisdiction in the rooms of the [12]*12University of the State of New York by its employees, the stationery used by the Legislature, briefs and cases on appeal required by the attorney-general and bulletins issued by the Geneva and Ithaca experimental stations.” (State Printing Law, § 4, as amd. by Laws of 1922, chap. 643.)

Section 3 of the State Printing Law, as enacted by chapter 507 of the Laws of 1901 and revised by chapter 60 of the Laws of 1909, which section became section 4 in the revision of 1917 (Laws of 1917, chap. 667), expressly exempted from department printing the printing authorized by the Election Law ” until 1922, when, by chapter 643 of the Laws of 1922, the exemption was stricken from the statute.

The ehmination of this exemption is significant and clearly indicates in my judgment an intent on the part of the Legislature to include within department printing that which had previously been exempted by express terms.

Section 7 of the State Printing Law was likewise amended by chapter 643 of the Laws of 1922, and the definition of department printing was continued therein to include all other printing work for the various departments and institutions of the State, other than the legislature * * *.”

Under this section, as amended, the Board of Estimate and Control may exclude such printing designated in this section as it deems proper and classify it as supplies, and pursuant to the section may advertise for and let separate contracts for such work.

A power of discretion is, therefore, vested in the Division of Standards and Purchase under this provision to exclude from the contract for department printing such work as may come within the particular designation contained therein.

Under the contracts now held by the petitioner there exists no evidence of any such exclusion. On the contrary, the contracts by their terms make the notice and proposal a part of the agreement of the parties. Department printing is therein defined as “ all kinds of printed matter and materials except such as are exempt by law,” and the legislative printing and the printing of the Session Laws.

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

Related

J. B. Lyon Co. v. Morris
237 A.D. 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 Misc. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-lyon-co-v-morris-nysupct-1932.