Summary
The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed dismissal of an Article 78 proceeding challenging a determination that Key Construction Services was responsible for telecommunications and information technology work under its contract with Westchester County. The court held that the contract documents conclusively established the petitioner’s responsibility for the work and noted that the petitioner had not identified the alleged ambiguity before bidding as required by the contract.
Holdings
- Dismissal was proper because the contract documents, including Addendum No. 1 and the attached drawings, utterly refuted the petitioner's allegation that the telecommunications and information-technology work was outside its contractual responsibility and conclusively established a defense as a matter of law.
- The petitioner could not avoid its contractual responsibility where it failed to comply with the contract's requirement that bidders discover and inquire about ambiguities in the plans, specifications, or contract before submitting a bid.
Questions Presented
- Whether documentary evidence conclusively refuted the petitioner's allegation that it was not contractually responsible for the telecommunications and information-technology work, warranting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1).
- Whether the petitioner's failure to comply with the contract provision requiring bidders to inquire about ambiguities before bidding supported dismissal of the article 78 proceeding.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (9)
- Matter of O'Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 198 AD3d 896, 899(followed)
- Matter of Thomas v Garden City Park Water/Fire Dist., 229 AD3d 558, 560(followed)
- Matter of Levy v SUNY Stony Brook, 185 AD3d 689, 690(followed)
- Matter of Kunik v New York City Dept. of Educ., 142 AD3d 616, 618(followed)
- Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275(followed)
- Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 215 AD3d 907, 909(followed)
- Acme Bldrs. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 51 NY2d 833, 834(followed)
- Lakhi Gen. Contr., Inc. v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 147 AD3d 917, 919(followed)
- Arnell Constr. Corp. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 193 AD2d 640, 641(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…