Case ID: ny_232/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dennis E. Conners, Appellant, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.
    
      New York city — award of contract for erection of public building —: insufficiency of appropriation at time bids were received — attempted revocation of bid — when mandamus to compel return of security properly denied.
    
    
      People ex rel. Conners v. Bd. of Education, N. Y., 197 App. Div. 5, affirmed.
    (Argued October 10, 1921;
    decided October 25, 1921.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 27, 1921, which reversed, as matter of law, an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to return to the relator a sum deposited by him as security to his bid for the construction of a certain school building, and denied said motion. Relator’s bid was in excess of the estimated cost. The defendant accepted it subject to approval of the board of estimate and apportionment but failed to notify relator of its action. The relator thereupon wrote to the defendant, referring to the fact that no award of the contract had been made and that there had been a substantial increase in the cost of the work and notified it that he withdrew his bid and requested the return of his deposit. Thereafter defendant having received the approval of the board of estimate and apportionment made the necessary appropriation and notified relator that his bid was accepted.. Relator contended that the contract could not be legally awarded for the reason that the appropriation was insufficient at the time the bids were received. The Appellate Division held that a sufficient general appropriation having been made it was not essential that the sub-appropriation be made until the precise amount required should be determined.
    
      M. Carl Levine for appellant.
    
      John P. O’Brien, Corporation Counsel (,Joseph L. Pascal of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Laughlin, J., below.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.