You are here: / / Criteria for Evaluating County Bidding Process Explained

Criteria for Evaluating County Bidding Process Explained

Rockland County sought bids for public bus transportation. The respondent, Brega Transportation Corporation [hereinafter “Brega”], protested the county’s bid specifications as exclusionary and discriminatory and Supreme Court agreed.  The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that Rockland County’s Invitation to Bid for Transit Operations and Maintenance [hereinafter “RFB”] violated Municipal Law 103.    After explaining the criteria for evaluation of a bidding process, the Second Department wrote:

Where bid specifications are “not facially anticompetitive,” courts apply “ordinary rational basis review” …. A “’spectral appearance of impropriety’ is insufficient proof to disturb a [municipality’s] determination under the competitive bidding statutes” … . Instead, a party challenging a procurement “has the burden to demonstrate actual’ impropriety, unfair dealing or some other violation of statutory requirements”… .  Here, the Supreme Court improperly shifted the burden of proof from Brega to the county. Since Brega made only conclusory assertions and failed to demonstrate that the county’s bid specifications were irrational or exclusionary, the court erred in invalidating the RFB on that basis… .  Brega Transp Corp v Brennan, 2013 NY Slip Op 02707, 2012-03188, Index No 498/12, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

 

You might also like
Finding of Neglect of One Child by Consent Is Admissible In a Derivative Neglect Proceeding Re: Another Child—Criteria for Derivative Neglect Explained
REMAINDER INTERESTS WHICH CAN ONLY BE DIVESTED BY A POWER OF APPOINTMENT ARE VESTED REMAINDER INTERESTS.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STROKE DIAGNOSIS WAS TIMELY AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY DIAGNOSIS DECREASED THE CHANCES OF A BETTER OUTCOME (SECOND DEPT).
Rear-End Collision Warranted Summary Judgment on Liability
BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT A STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE WITHDRAWN THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Material Misrepresentation Rendered Insurance Policy Void Ab Initio Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode...