Theodore J. Burke & Son, Inc. v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Theodore J. Burke & Son, Inc. v. County of Dutchess

50 A.D.2d 918, 377 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11840

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 918 (Theodore J. Burke & Son, Inc. v. County of Dutchess) 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

Theodore J. Burke & Son, Inc. v. County of Dutchess, 50 A.D.2d 918, 377 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate the award of a certain contract, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 28, 1975, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The allegations of petitioner that the award of the contract to respondent H. O. Penn Machinery Co., Inc., was unlawful and in violation of section 103 of the General Municipal Law are unsupported by factual allegations which would overcome the presumption that the respondent county purchasing agent acted properly. Thus, Special Term’s determination that the contract was properly awarded after competitive bidding should not be disturbed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate the award of a certain contract, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 28, 1975, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The allegations of petitioner that the award of the contract to respondent H. O. Penn Machinery Co., Inc., was unlawful and in violation of section 103 of the General Municipal Law are unsupported by factual allegations which would overcome the presumption that the respondent county purchasing agent acted properly. Thus, Special Term’s determination that the contract was properly awarded after competitive bidding should not be disturbed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 918, 377 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodore-j-burke-son-inc-v-county-of-dutchess-nyappdiv-1975.