J. T. Falk & Co. v. State University Construction Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. T. Falk & Co. v. State University Construction Fund

51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 911 (J. T. Falk & Co. v. State University Construction Fund) 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

J. T. Falk & Co. v. State University Construction Fund, 51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 2, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We are unable to say that the defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously in defining the bid specifications. That such specifications were not too vague to be understandable or to form a basis for competitive bidding would seem to be sufficiently established by the fact that there were actually eight bids, including plaintiff’s; that plaintiff’s bid was only about 5% more than the lowest bid, and that six of the eight bids were within a range of less than 10% of the low bid. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Birns, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 2, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We are unable to say that the defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously in defining the bid specifications. That such specifications were not too vague to be understandable or to form a basis for competitive bidding would seem to be sufficiently established by the fact that there were actually eight bids, including plaintiff’s; that plaintiff’s bid was only about 5% more than the lowest bid, and that six of the eight bids were within a range of less than 10% of the low bid. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Birns, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-t-falk-co-v-state-university-construction-fund-nyappdiv-1976.