You are here: / / IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY’S...

IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY’S DEVIATION FROM A FORMULA DESCRIBED IN ITS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-judge dissent, determined that defendant county was required to use the formula outlined in its request for proposals (RFP) when evaluating bids for county contracts (here involving use of private bus services). The county included one formula in the RFP and used a different formula in awarding the contract:

Here, the County deviated from the criteria specified in its RFP when it evaluated the proposals received pursuant to its request. The emphatic language used in the RFP's paradigm of a percentage to points ratio — stating that if a 10% cost difference exists between the lowest offeror and the next lowest, then the latter “will have 2 points deducted from the maximum score of 20” — makes clear that the “example” was meant to explain that a percentage to points ratio is one in which a one percent cost difference translates to one percent of the total number of points allocated to cost. Instead, the County used a 2-point deduction for every 4% difference in price. Applying this new formula, a one percent cost difference corresponded to 2.5%, rather than one percent, of the number of points assigned to cost.

The County abandoned the cost formula it had promised to apply and instead created a new formula that disfavored ACME. This was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of ACME Bus Corp. v Orange County, 2016 NY Slip Op 07835, CtApp 11-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY'S DEVIATION FROM A FORMULA DESCRIBED IN ITS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)

You might also like
Sex Offender Who Has Difficulty Controlling Sexual Urges, As Opposed to a Sex Offender Who Is Unable to Control Sexual Urges, Should Be Placed Under Strict and Intensive Supervision, Not Confined
Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different Victims Named
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
Normal Negligence Theories Apply to Injury Resulting from Animal Wandering Off (Cow Struck By Car)
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED (CT APP).
SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S NEGOTIATION OF A PLEA DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT, IN RETURN FOR THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ESSENTIAL TESTIMONY IDENTIFYING THE DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS DEPICTED IN A VIDEO, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (CT APP).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT... SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND CAN BE COMPELLED BY COURT ORDER TO CONSENT, NUNC PRO...