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.
IN RE: HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. ROSE HARVEY, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, ANDY BEERS, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, MAID OF THE MIST CORPORATION, GIL C. QUINIONES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY AND NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANDY BEERS, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEW YORK STATE OFFICE
OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, to compel respondent New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Parks) to conduct competitive, public bidding with respect to a public concession license to operate scenic boat tours and to conduct related services on the Niagara River (hereafter, license). Parks had granted the license to respondent Maid of the Mist Corporation (MOTM) in 2002 for a 40–year term, and this proceeding was commenced when Parks and MOTM thereafter sought to amend the provisions of the license. We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in determining that it lacks standing to seek the relief requested (see Albert Elia Bldg. Co. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 54 A.D.2d 337, 341–342). With respect to the substantive merits, however, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate “a ‘clear legal right’ to the relief requested” (Matter of Council of City of N.Y. v Bloomberg, 6 NY3d 380, 388). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 3.09 does not require competitive, public bidding for the work authorized by the amendment of the license. Contrary to petitioner's additional contention, we conclude that the amendment was in furtherance of MOTM's 2002 license and the business conducted thereunder, and the amendment did not “so alter[ ]” the terms, “the essential identity or [the] main purpose of the [2002 license] that it constitute[d] a new undertaking” rendering the work authorized by the amendment subject to competitive, public bidding (Albert Elia Bldg. Co., 54 A.D.2d at 343).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–00252
Decided: October 03, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)