Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROMANO ENTERPRISES OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered October 23, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking, inter alia, to annul respondents' determination of petitioner's non-responsibility on certain contracts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The agency determinations of non-responsibility were rationally based, since there was evidence that petitioner and its principal had engaged in a bid-rigging scheme on prior contracts, and that petitioner's principal misrepresented on various documents his involvement with other undisputed bid-riggers and his criminal record, all of which demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of integrity (see, Matter of Patrick R. Brereton & Assocs. v. Regan, 94 A.D.2d 886, 887, 463 N.Y.S.2d 319, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 807, 809, 469 N.Y.S.2d 699, 457 N.E.2d 806; Matter of Tully Constr. Co. v. Hevesi, 214 A.D.2d 465, 625 N.Y.S.2d 531, appeal withdrawn 87 N.Y.2d 969, 642 N.Y.S.2d 198, 664 N.E.2d 1261). The non-responsibility determination, which was made only after petitioner, through its principals and attorney, were afforded an opportunity to present their arguments in person and in writing, and was reviewed in three levels of agency appeal, did not deprive petitioner of any due process rights and we reject petitioner's claim that the instant agency determination, when coupled with a prior similar determination, amounted to de facto debarment (Matter of Callanan Indus. v. White, 118 A.D.2d 167, 170-171, 503 N.Y.S.2d 930, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 601, 511 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 503 N.E.2d 695; see also, Matter of Mid-State Indus. v. City of Cohoes, 221 A.D.2d 705, 706-707, 633 N.Y.S.2d 238).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 29, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)