You are here: / Party Who Properly Withdrew a Mistaken Bid on a Public Works Project Should...

Search Results

/

Party Who Properly Withdrew a Mistaken Bid on a Public Works Project Should Have Been Allowed to Rebid

The Fourth Department determined a party (Kandey) who withdrew a mistaken bid on a public works project should have been allowed to rebid:

The court properly concluded that a rational basis supported the County’s determination that Kandey made the showing required by General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (a) when it sought permission to withdraw its mistaken bid. The court erred, however, in concluding that the County failed to comply with General Municipal Law § 103 (11) (b) when it permitted Kandey to participate in the rebid. That section provides that the “sole remedy for a bid mistake in accordance with this section shall be withdrawal of that bid and the return of the bid bond or other security, if any, to the bidder.” That is precisely what the County did here when it permitted Kandey to withdraw the mistaken bid. The statute further provides that, after the mistaken bid is withdrawn, the County “may, in its discretion, award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder or rebid the contract,” and the County acted within the discretion extended to it under the statute when it elected to rebid the contract.

The statute is silent on the question whether a contractor that was permitted to withdraw its bid may participate in the rebid. We agree with Kandey and the County that, had the Legislature intended to forbid a contractor in Kandey’s position from participating in the rebid, it would have done so explicitly. Further, “[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit” … . Thus, we do not interpret the statute to include an implicit prohibition against Kandey’s participation in the rebid following the withdrawal of its mistaken bid. Matter of Concrete Applied Tech. Corp. v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 06087, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/ , , , , ,

Claims Against the State Based Upon Recurrent Flooding Properly In Supreme Court as Opposed to the Court of Claims/Criteria for Inverse Condemnation of Property Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that an action against the state alleging recurrent flooding of plaintiffs’ property was properly in Supreme Court, despite the statutory requirement that claims against the state for monetary damages be brought in the Court of Claims. The Fourth Department held that the state did not demonstrate that the essential nature of the claim was to recover money. The Fourth Department further determined that the cause of action for inverse condemnation was properly dismissed, explaining the criteria:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing all claims for money damages. Although defendant is correct that ” claims that are primarily against the State for damages must be brought in the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court may consider a claim for injunctive relief as long as the claim is not primarily for damages’ ” (… see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Here, defendant failed to establish in support of its cross motion that the essential nature of the causes of action for negligence, continuing nuisance, and continuing trespass is to recover money damages, and thus the court properly declined to grant summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

We agree, however, with the further contention of defendant that the court erred in denying that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for inverse condemnation, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That cause of action alleged that the flooding intruded onto plaintiffs’ properties and interfered with their property rights to such an extent that it constituted “a constitutional taking requiring [defendant] to purchase the properties from plaintiffs.” It is well settled that such a “taking can consist of either a permanent ouster of the owner, or a permanent interference with the owner’s physical use, possession, and enjoyment of the property, by one having condemnation powers” … . “In order to constitute a permanent ouster, defendant[‘s] conduct must constitute a permanent physical occupation of plaintiff’s property amounting to exercise of dominion and control thereof’ ” … .

Here, defendant met its burden on its cross motion with respect to the cause of action for inverse condemnation by establishing as a matter of law that any interference with plaintiffs’ property rights was not sufficiently permanent to constitute a de facto taking … . Greece Ridge, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06072, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/ , ,

Parking Lot Not “Suitable” for Recreational Use Pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103—Statutory Assumption of Risk Re: Riding a Bicycle in the Parking Lot Not Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a “recreational use” affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s son was injured when his bicycle struck a depressed area in defendant’s parking lot. Defendant sought to allege plaintiff’s son assumed the risk of injury because the parking lot was covered by the recreational use statute, General Obligations Law 9-103. The Fourth Department, finding that the parking lot was not “suitable” for recreational use, explained the relevant analytical criteria:

We conclude that the court properly determined that defendant’s proposed amendment patently lacks merit inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply to the facts of this case as a matter of law. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s son was engaged in one of the recreational activities enumerated in section 9-103, i.e., bicycle riding, when he was injured. To establish applicability of the statute, however, defendant was also required to show that its property “was suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff[‘s son] was participating when the accident occurred” … . “Whether a parcel of land is suitable and the immunity [of the recreational use statute] available is a question of statutory interpretation, and is, therefore, a question of law for the Court” … . Suitability is established by showing that the subject property is ” (1) physically conducive to the activity at issue, and (2) of a type that is appropriate for public use in pursuing that activity as recreation’ ” … . “A substantial indicator that the property is physically conducive to the particular activity is whether recreationists have used the property for that activity in the past; such past use by participants in the [activity] manifests the fact that the property is physically conducive to it” … . Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence that the property had been used in the past by “recreationists” for bicycle riding. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the subject property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has made clear that recreational use immunity should apply only to property that “the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities” … . Here, defendant failed to establish that its employee parking lot comes within the purview of that standard. Sasso v WCA Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06066, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/ ,

Trial Judge’s Acceptance of Petitioner’s Expert’s Valuation of the Property Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—the Actual Purchase Price in a Recent Sale and the Actual Rent Should Have Been Part of the Analysis

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that the trial judge’s findings re: the assessed value of a retail property (for property tax purposes) were against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, the trial judge accepted the petitioner’s (Rite Aid’s) expert’s valuation which failed to take into account the actual price paid in a recent arm’s-length sale of the property, comparable sales, the actual rent (negotiated at arm’s length) and comparable rentals:

… [A]n appellate court is empowered to make new findings of value where the trial court ” has failed to give to conflicting evidence the relative weight which it should have’ ” …, giving due deference to the trial court’s power to resolve credibility issues by choosing among conflicting expert opinions … .

It is well settled that real “[p]roperty is assessed for tax purposes according to its condition [and ownership] on the taxable status date, without regard to future potentialities or possibilities and may not be assessed on the basis of some use contemplated in the future” … . Although several methods of valuing real property are acceptable, “the market value method of valuation is preferred as the most reliable measure of a property’s full value for assessment purposes” …, because “[t]he best evidence of value, of course, is a recent sale of the subject property between a seller under no compulsion to sell and a buyer under no compulsion to buy” … . A recent sale has been characterized as evidence of the “highest rank” in determining market value … . The scope of a “market” need not be limited to the locale of the subject property and, depending on the nature of the use, it may encompass national and/or international buyers and sellers … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the failure of petitioner’s expert to use the recent sale of the subject property as well as readily available comparable sales of national chain drugstore properties in the applicable submarket as evidence of value demonstrates the invalidity of the expert’s conclusion with respect to the sales comparison valuation … . We further conclude that the use of sales not comparable to the subject and outside of the applicable market should have been rejected by the court as unreliable … . Moreover, the failure of petitioner’s expert to use the actual rent, negotiated at arm’s length and without duress or collusion, as well as the failure to use similar rental comparables from the applicable market as evidence of value, demonstrates the invalidity of the expert’s conclusions using the income capitalization method … . Matter of Rite Aid Corp. v Haywood, 2015 NY Slip Op 06049, 4th Dept 7-10-15

Similar issues and result in Matter of Rite Aid Corp. v Huseby, 2015 NY Slip Op 06051, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/ , ,

Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Maltreatment Report

The Third Department determined the Commissioner of Children and Family Services should have granted the petition to expunge and amend as unfounded a maltreatment report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. Although the denial could properly be based upon hearsay and double hearsay, the maltreatment finding was not based upon substantial evidence:

To establish maltreatment, the agency was required to show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the physical, mental or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired because of a failure by petitioner to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with appropriate supervision or guardianship … . Our review is limited to assessing whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, meaning “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… .

Here, the proof introduced against petitioner consisted solely of the investigation progress notes and a Family Court order from 1998 that adjudicated petitioner to have neglected another son. The progress notes were prepared by a child protective services caseworker and include her accounts of interviews with numerous individuals, including the child and his therapist, that led her to the conclusion that maltreatment had occurred. Neither the caseworker nor her interview subjects testified before the Administrative Law Judge, however, and the progress notes reflect that the child bore no marks or evident injuries as a result of the maltreatment. In contrast to this meager evidentiary showing, petitioner and his wife both testified and denied that any maltreatment had occurred. Petitioner also asserted, without contradiction, that he was physically incapable of engaging in some of the claimed maltreatment, such as lifting the 110-pound child with one hand. His wife further stated that the child admitted to her that he was lying about the alleged maltreatment. The record suggests a reason why the child might be prompted to lie, as a bitter custody dispute between petitioner and the child’s mother has led to numerous unfounded reports of mistreatment regarding petitioner.

Like any administrative determination, one made after an expungement hearing may be based solely upon hearsay evidence — or even double hearsay evidence — in the appropriate case … . As such, “our concern is not the hearsay nature of the evidence, but whether it is sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence” … . Hearsay evidence will not satisfy that standard if the facts it purportedly establishes are “seriously controverted” … . Serious controversy is precisely what surrounds the hearsay evidence here, given the hearing testimony that the maltreatment had not occurred and that the child had recanted his claims, the proof that motivations may have existed for the child to fabricate the maltreatment, and the total lack of physical evidence suggesting that it occurred. We accordingly agree with petitioner that substantial evidence does not support the challenged determination, which must be annulled as a result … . Matter of Gerald HH. v Carrion, 2015 NY Slip Op 05982, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Two-to-Five-Foot Fall from Edge of Roof to Scaffolding Supported Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action

The Third Department determined a two-to-five foot fall from the edge of a roof to scaffolding properly survived summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) arises when a worker’s injuries are “‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … . Ordinarily, the adequacy of a safety device is a question of fact, unless the device “‘collapses, slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting the worker'” … .

The distance that Scribner fell from the roof ledge to the scaffolding is disputed. Claimant alleged, in the bill of particulars, that the scaffolding was two feet below the ledge, while Scribner and the project supervisor asserted in their deposition testimony that the scaffolding was four to five feet below the ledge. Regardless of whether the height differential was two, four or five feet, Scribner’s fall is the type of elevation-related risk to which Labor Law § 240 (1) applies … .

The parties’ submissions also raise a question of fact as to whether the scaffolding afforded … adequate protection and, if not, whether the absence of an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of his injuries … . Scribner v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05993, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury was elevation-related and therefore was covered under Labor Law 240(1).  Plaintiff was standing on a building-roof using hand signals to guide a crane when he fell from the roof. Supreme Court reasoned plaintiff could have accomplished his job while staying away from the edge of the roof and, therefore, the accident was not elevation-related within the meaning of the statute. The Third Department rejected that reasoning and noted that the parapet wall around the edge of the roof was part of the structure of the building and could not, therefore, be considered a safety device:

Supreme Court determined that his injuries did not flow from an elevation-related hazard, as plaintiff was not “required to work at an elevation” and could have stayed away from the edge of the roof by directing the crane operator via cell phone … . This determination, however, ran against the undisputed proof that plaintiff had to work somewhere on the roof in order to signal the crane operator and that hand signaling was the usual method of doing so … . His decision to employ an accepted method of signaling while performing necessary work on the roof, even if a safer method existed, constituted nothing more than “comparative fault that is not a defense under the statute”… .

… A parapet wall surrounded the edge of the roof, but “a permanent appurtenance to a building does not normally constitute the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other safety device within the meaning of the statute” … . Salzer v Benderson Dev. Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06001, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/ , , ,

In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars

The Third Department determined evidence of a theory of liability that was not explicitly included in the pleadings and bill of particulars was not error. The theory was implicit in the pleadings and the defendants could not have been surprised by the related evidence. The court noted it would have been better had the plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the evidence:

Generally, a party is limited to presenting evidence at trial that supports a cause of action or theory of recovery that was either pleaded in the complaint or asserted in the bill of particulars … . However, evidence concerning a specific theory or injury not mentioned in the bill of particulars may nonetheless avoid exclusion where such proof necessarily flows from the information conveyed in the pleadings and where the defendants should have been aware of the basis thereof… .

The contested theory of liability in this case is based on the allegedly erroneous interpretation of plaintiff’s February CT scan by Beatty (hereinafter referred to as the Beatty theory). It is worth noting that, because the complaint and bills of particulars do not contain an express articulation of the Beatty theory, the better practice certainly would have been for plaintiff to seek leave to amend his pleadings in advance of trial or at least have moved to conform the pleadings to the proof after the trial was underway. However, we nonetheless find that Supreme Court’s determinations allowing plaintiff to advance the Beatty theory at trial, including permitting plaintiff’s expert to offer testimony on the theory, do not constitute reversible error. In our view, the complaint— * * * which reference[s] the February CT scan as a basis for a departure from accepted medical practice — [was] sufficient to notify defendants of the Beatty theory and, as such, permit that theory of liability to be advanced at trial without prejudice. Simply put, we are unpersuaded by defendants’ position that they were not aware of the Beatty theory as a basis for a potential finding of medical malpractice. Boyer v Kamthan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05983, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident

Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined the fact that defendant’s (Pepsi’s) vehicle was double-parked did not warrant denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. The fact that the vehicle was double-parked was merely the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, not the cause. Plaintiff’s claim that sunlight temporarily blinded him did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for his striking the rear of the Pepsi vehicle:

In this rear-end collision case, even assuming that the Pepsi vehicle, hit from behind, was illegally double-parked, that fact, standing alone “does not automatically establish that such double-parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the record shows that the double-parked vehicle, given the road conditions at the time of the accident, namely, the favorable weather, the time of day, and the relatively minimal amount of traffic on the road at the time, “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes” … . Plaintiff’s proffered excuse for the accident, that sunlight temporary blinded the driver of the rear vehicle, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Barry v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06034, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

/ ,

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined an elevator maintenance company (The Elevator Man) did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when the elevator free-fell three stories in September 2010. The maintenance contract with the elevator maintenance company had been cancelled for non-payment, but the company had subsequently agreed to do, and had done, emergency repairs when called to do so. Although there was evidence the elevator maintenance company was negligent re: repairs done in early 2010, applying the “Espinal” criteria, the First Department held there was no evidence the maintenance company “launched an instrument of harm,” the only available theory of liability:

If the issue were limited to whether The Elevator Man was negligent, a question of fact would preclude summary judgment. However, the issue is not that simple.

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

Where a contractor has entered into a contract to render services, it may only be held to have assumed a duty of care to nonparties to the contract in three situations:

“(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff relies on the inspection performed by The Elevator Man on January 14, 2010 in which it gave the elevator a “Satisfactory” rating, despite a “Cease Use” violation that had been issued on November 1, 2009, The Elevator Man was subject to the maintenance contract then in effect. To the extent plaintiff argues that The Elevator Man was negligent in the work it performed on May 26, 2010, any duty The Elevator Man had toward him could not be based on the terminated 2009 maintenance agreement; nevertheless, The Elevator Man continued to be subject to a more limited contract with the manager of the parking facility, in which it agreed to respond to emergency calls, upon payment of an agreed fee.

We find the rule set forth in Espinal to apply here. It is conceded that of the three possibilities listed in Espinal, only the first could provide a basis for liability to plaintiff: “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” (id. at 140). However, even accepting for purposes of this analysis that The Elevator Man negligently inspected the elevator on January 14, 2010 and negligently failed to correctly assess the condition of the elevator and necessary repair on May 26, 2010, it cannot be said to have launched a force or instrument of harm. That is, in failing to correctly inspect or repair the elevator, it did not create or exacerbate an unsafe condition. Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06044, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

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