Matter of Troeller v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Troeller v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

138 A.D.3d 502, 28 N.Y.S.3d 309

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

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket806 113097/11

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 502 (Matter of Troeller v. New York City Dept. of Educ.) 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

Matter of Troeller v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 138 A.D.3d 502, 28 N.Y.S.3d 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered September 16, 2014, which denied the petition seeking an order declaring the municipal respondents’ (together DOE) practice of assigning public work to respondent Temco Service Industries, Inc. (Temco), without satisfying competitive bidding requirements, to be violative of General Municipal Law § 103 and Education Law § 2556 (10), and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Article 3 (B) (ii) expressly permitted DOE to assign to Temco schools under DOE’s temporary custodial care, regardless of geography. Hence, DOE’s construction of the subject contract as permitting such assignments was rationally supported by *503 the contract’s overall language and intent, and not arbitrary or capricious or affected by any error of law (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Dunlop Dev. Corp. v Spitzer, 26 AD3d 180, 180 [1st Dept 2006]; Valentin v New York City Police Pension Fund, 16 AD3d 145, 145 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 703 [2005]). DOE likewise rationally interpreted Article 1 (B) (32) of the contract, providing, in pertinent part, that DOE has “the right to amend staffing patterns as it deems appropriate,” as permitting the agency to have its Deputy Directors of School Facilities oversee groups of two to five school buildings in which Temco employees provided cleaning and custodial services, with no onsite “Building Managers,” as otherwise provided for in the contract.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered September 16, 2014, which denied the petition seeking an order declaring the municipal respondents’ (together DOE) practice of assigning public work to respondent Temco Service Industries, Inc. (Temco), without satisfying competitive bidding requirements, to be violative of General Municipal Law § 103 and Education Law § 2556 (10), and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Article 3 (B) (ii) expressly permitted DOE to assign to Temco schools under DOE’s temporary custodial care, regardless of geography. Hence, DOE’s construction of the subject contract as permitting such assignments was rationally supported by *503 the contract’s overall language and intent, and not arbitrary or capricious or affected by any error of law (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Dunlop Dev. Corp. v Spitzer, 26 AD3d 180, 180 [1st Dept 2006]; Valentin v New York City Police Pension Fund, 16 AD3d 145, 145 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 703 [2005]). DOE likewise rationally interpreted Article 1 (B) (32) of the contract, providing, in pertinent part, that DOE has “the right to amend staffing patterns as it deems appropriate,” as permitting the agency to have its Deputy Directors of School Facilities oversee groups of two to five school buildings in which Temco employees provided cleaning and custodial services, with no onsite “Building Managers,” as otherwise provided for in the contract.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 502, 28 N.Y.S.3d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-troeller-v-new-york-city-dept-of-educ-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack