Framan Mech., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 31688(U)

May 15, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 150229/2024

Judge: J. Machelle Sweeting

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
150229/2024 FRAMAN MECHANICAL, INC. vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Motion No. 001

Page 1 of 4

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) .

Petitioner filed a motion seeking an order and judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil 

Practice Law and Rules: 

a) Declaring that the decisions issued by respondent New York City Housing Authority 

(“NYCHA”), dated September 12, 2023, September 13, 2023, December 7, 2023, 

December 26, 2023, and January 8, 2024 (collectively, the “Decisions”), which deemed 

Framan’s bid non-responsive for Request for Quotation (“RFQ”) number 40799 for the 

"Boiler Replacement at Lehman Village (Building 4) project (the “Project”), were arbitrary

and capricious and constitute an abuse of discretion, and/or affected by an error of law; 

b) Vacating and annulling the Decisions in their entirety; and 

c) Declaring petitioner Framan’s bid as responsive and compelling NYCHA to award the 

Project contract to Framan, the lowest responsible bidder.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. J. MACHELLE SWEETING PART 62

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150229/2024

 MOTION DATE 01/09/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

FRAMAN MECHANICAL, INC.

 Petitioner, 

- v -

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,

 Respondent. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 150229/2024

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

1 of 4 [* 1]
150229/2024 FRAMAN MECHANICAL, INC. vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Motion No. 001

Page 2 of 4

Arguments Made by the Parties

Petitioner argues that it had submitted a bid for the Project that was $125,000 lower than 

the nearest bid, but NYCHA denied petitioner’s bid for reasons that were arbitrary, capricious, and 

an abuse of discretion. Specifically, NYCHA denied petitioner’s bid for the sole reason that 

petitioner, due to a technical glitch, failed to timely submit two letters of assent from 

subcontractors. 

Petitioner argues that years earlier, petitioner had bid on a different NYCHA project (the 

“earlier bid”), and in the earlier bid, NYCHA had given petitioner the opportunity to cure ten

deficiencies. Petitioner argues:

This refusal contradicts NYCHA’s previous practice of allowing [petitioner] Framan to 

rectify more material and fatal defects post-bid, demonstrating a notable inconsistency and 

arbitrariness in NYCHA's decision-making process and its exercise of discretion. 

NYCHA's Decisions deviate from its established precedents without reasonable 

justification and violate the established law, warranting their annulment as arbitrary, 

capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

In opposition, NYCHA argues, first, that in the earlier bid, the ten deficiencies petitioner 

was allowed to cure constituted non-material typographical errors and non-material missing 

identification information that was not expressly required prior to the bid opening. In contrast, 

here, letters of assent for the subject bid were a material condition, and the Project RFQ clearly 

warned all bidders that the failure to submit such letters of assent “shall” result in a bid being 

declared non-responsive. NYCHA also argues that petitioner was not the only bidder found nonresponsive for failure to include letters of assent, and that a decision in petitioner’s favor would 

give petitioner an unfair advantage.

INDEX NO. 150229/2024

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

2 of 4 [* 2]
150229/2024 FRAMAN MECHANICAL, INC. vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Motion No. 001

Page 3 of 4

NYCHA argues, second, that it is well established law that the decision to award a public 

contract is a purely discretionary act and cannot be compelled by a court. Therefore, NYCHA 

argues, the court may not direct NYCHA to award the contract for the Project to petitioner.

Further, NYCHA argues, any relief awarded to petitioner would be limited to bid preparation costs 

only.

In Reply, petitioner argues that NYCHA’s failure to contact petitioner regarding the 

missing letters before disqualifying petitioner is a substantial break from NYCHA’s own practice 

and procedures and is irrational and arbitrary. Petitioner argues that he cured the omission only 

one day after he was made aware of it, and that NYCHA went against the best interests of the 

public and to the taxpayers’ detriment, by disqualifying his bid, which was $125,000 lower than 

any others.

Conclusions of Law

Here, petitioner does not deny that he failed to timely submit the letters of assent, nor does 

petitioner deny that the Project RFQ contained an express requirement that made clear that the

failure to comply with this condition would result in a bid being declared non-responsive. 

Therefore, NYSCHA’s decision, which wasin accordance with thisrequirement, was not arbitrary, 

capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See P & C Giampilis Const. Corp. v Diamond, 210 AD2d 

64 (1st Dept 1994) (“Courts have repeatedly upheld the rejection by municipal agencies of 

competitive bids, without any further investigation other than a review of the bid documents, based 

upon non-responsiveness, where, as here, the bids failed to comply with the literal requirements 

of the bid specifications [internal quotations omitted]”); Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr. v Chancellor's 

Bd. of Review, 307 AD2d 815 (1st Dept 2003):

INDEX NO. 150229/2024

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

3 of 4 [* 3]
150229/2024 FRAMAN MECHANICAL, INC. vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Motion No. 001

Page 4 of 4

In the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, it is well settled that judicial review is 

limited to a determination of whether the administrative action is arbitrary and capricious 

or lacks a rational basis. Where such a rational basis exists, an administrative agency's 

construction and interpretation of its own regulations and of the statute under which it 

functions are entitled to great deference. Furthermore, a municipality awarding contracts 

pursuant to competitive bidding has the discretion to reject bids for noncompliance with its 

competitive bidding requirements. [internal citations omitted]

Given the circumstances here, this court finds that the decision by NYCHA was within its

discretion and was neither arbitrary nor capricious or an abuse of discretion. See Mun. Testing 

Lab., Inc. v New York City Tr. Auth., 233 AD2d 105 (1st Dept 1996) (“The award of the subject 

contract [...] was a matter within the Authority's discretionary management of its operations, and 

therefore not justiciable absent an indication that the Authority disregarded its own guidelines”); 

P & A Bros., Inc. v City of New York Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 AD2d 267 (1st Dept 1992) 

(“The Supreme Court, however, correctly recognized that the acceptance or rejection of bids is a 

determination within the discretion of the agency and may not be disturbed absent actual 

impropriety or unfair dealings, neither of which are even alleged here.”).

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby:

ORDERED that this petition is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that there being no other applications, this proceeding is closed.

5/15/2024 $SIG$

DATE J. MACHELLE SWEETING, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 150229/2024

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

4 of 4 [* 4]