T. A. Clarke Co. v. Board of Education

156 A.D. 842, 142 N.Y.S. 106, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 156 A.D. 842 (T. A. Clarke Co. v. Board of Education) 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
T. A. Clarke Co. v. Board of Education, 156 A.D. 842, 142 N.Y.S. 106, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Clarke, J.:

This is an action brought to recover $35,000 prospective profits of a contract alleged to have been made by the plaintiff with the defendant for the construction of school No. 92 at Park avenue and Grinnell avenue, borough of Queens, in the former town of Newtown.

On February- 3, 1908, the board of education adopted a report of its committee on buildings requesting the board of estimate and apportionment to authorize the issue of corporate stock during the remainder of the year 1908 to the amount of $9,964,637 for the erection, equipment and improvement of school buildings and premises, $3,500,000 of said amount to be issued immediately. The comptroller, in line with the policy already established for the department of parks and other departments where requests were made for the issuance of corporate stock, to make appropriations for specific buildings instead of appropriating the money in a lump sum, wrote to the board of education requesting it to furnish information as follows: “ Schedule A. Name and location of all school buildings now under construction, together with estimated cost of providing electric work, heating and ventilating apparatus and furniture for each. ScheduleB. Estimated amount of contract to be let for each of the new buildings and additions; plans and specifications for which are either completed or in an advanced stage. Schedule D. Location of lots in Brooklyn which it is .proposed to improve, together with estimated expenditures for each.”

In consequence thereof, the following resolution was adopted by the board of education: “Whereas, the comptroller has recommended that this report be still further itemized; therefore, be it resolved, that the board of estimate and apportionment be, and it is hereby, requested to return the said above-mentioned report, without action thereon.” It then adopted a resolution proposed by the committee on buildings giving the detailed information under the schedules as requested.

On April first the comptroller wrote: “Concerning the recent request * * * for an issue of corporate stock [etc.], $2,164,704 of which amount has already been authorized for equipment, permit me to say that I am ready to recommend the authorization of $4,000,000 for the construction of elemen[844]*844tary schools if you will kindly furnish me with data showing : the specific purposes for which it will be used.” The committee on.buildings reported to the board of education: “Your committee has selected as most urgent the school buildings enumerated in the subjoined fist,” which did not include the school in question,; and the board of education adopted the resolution “that the board of estimate and apportionment be and .it is hereby respectfully requested to authorize the immediate issue of corporate stock to the amount of $4,107,075, the proceeds thereof to be used for the general construction of new elementary school buildings and additions, and necessary expenses in connection therewith, as above stated.”

On the twenty-second of April a further report was made by the committee on buildings to the board of education , giving its reasons for postponing the proposed additional building for public school bio. 99 in Brooklyn and recommending a forty-eight class room building at Park and G-rinnell avenues in the borough of Queens and recommending that the resolution just before referred to be amended by striking out the said provision for school bio. 99 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “ 92 Park and Grinnell Avenues and Eandall Street, biorth Oorona, 48 rooms, $182,000.” This was adopted by the board of education..

The board of estimate and apportionment on April 24, 1908, had presented to it by its secretary the resolutions of the board of education referred to, and after hearing the president of said board, and consideration having been had, adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, that pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of the Greater blew York Charter, as amended, the board of estimate and apportionment hereby approves of the issue of corporate stock of the city of biew York to an amount not exceeding $4,607,075 to provide means for the construction and improvement of public school buildings and additions thereto as follows” Then follow detailed schedules, including the following: “Borough of Queens.. * * * Public School 92, Park and Grinnell Avenues and Eandall Street, biorth Corona, 48 rooms, ■ $182,000, * * * and when authority therefor shall have been obtained from the Board of Aldermen the Comptroller be and is hereby authorized to issue corporate [845]*845stock of the city of New York, in the manner provided by section 169 of the Greater New York Charter, to an amount not exceeding $4,607,075, the proceeds whereof to be applied to the purposes aforesaid.” The resolution was concurred in by the board of aldermen on April 26, 1908,. approved by the mayor on June 4, 1908.

Plans for said school building were thereafter made and approved by the board of education, bids were invited, and on December 6, 1909, these bids were received and duly opened. There were eleven bids. The lowest was that of the plaintiff, the amount whereof being $281,000. On December 22, 1909, the committee on buildings reported to the board of education the bids made and stated: “The committee on buildings has accepted the bid of the lowest bidders, and submits for adoption the following resolution: ‘Resolved, That, subject to financial ability, the contract for the above-mentioned work be, and it is hereby, awarded to the lowest bidder, as follows: Borough of Queens, for the general construction, etc., of hew public school 92, T. A. Clarke Co., $281,000.’” The report was approved and the resolution adopted by an unanimous vote. On December 8, 1909, the secretary of the board of education had written to the plaintiff: “You are hereby notified that at a meeting of the committee on buildings held on December 6th, 1909, the action of the chairman in accepting your bid or bids, as stated below, was approved and ratified, subject to approval of securities, execution of contract and certification thereof by the Comptroller under section 149 of the Charter. * * * The acceptance of this bid is also subject to financial ability.”

On April 15, 1910, the plaintiff wrote to the board of education recounting the facts and that it had offered and requested that the execution of the contract be completed and that further delay would cause damage and it demanded that it be permitted to commence the actual work and said: “Your attention is called to the fact that this company has complied with all the conditions of said notice of acceptance and that the acceptance of the bid, subject to the financial ability of the city is not now and has not been a lawful condition, as certain public schools are now being erected, the contracts for which were advertised and let subse[846]*846quent to the acceptance of our bid. ” On December 15, 1910, the secretary of the board wrote: Referring to the award of contract made by, the Board of Education, on December 22, 1909, subject to financial ability, for the general construction of new public school 92, Queens, I beg to advise you that at a ' meeting of the Board of Education held on December 14, 1910, a report and resolution was adopted to the effect that you be notified that there was not a sufficient appropriation for the building of said school, and that the conditional award which was made upon condition that sufficient funds, for the building of said school could! be obtained must be withdrawn for the reason that there was no appropriation made for that purpose.”

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

Related

Starkie Holding Corp. v. Board of Education
248 A.D. 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Lowe v. City of New York
240 A.D. 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Henschel v. The City of New York
137 Misc. 310 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1930)
Matter of Brennan v. Bd. of Education
156 N.E. 78 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Carlson v. Craig
215 A.D. 3 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
People ex rel. Rangeley Construction Co. v. Craig
197 A.D. 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
People ex rel. Conners v. Board of Education
197 A.D. 5 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Matter of Hirshfield v. . Cook
125 N.E. 504 (New York Court of Appeals, 1919)
In re Hirshfield
188 A.D. 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Hirshfield v. Cook
107 Misc. 130 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)
People v. Prendergast
99 Misc. 8 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Matter of Dobrovolny v. . Prendergast
114 N.E. 436 (New York Court of Appeals, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 A.D. 842, 142 N.Y.S. 106, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-a-clarke-co-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1913.