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: Transit Auto Towing, Inc., appellant, v. City of Yonkers, et al., respondents.
Argued—June 10, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination by the City of Yonkers and Board of Contract and Supply dated February 25, 2010, which, among other things, granted A.P.O.W. Towing, LLC, a franchise to provide the City of Yonkers with towing, storage, and services related to the disposition of impounded vehicles, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wetzel, J.), entered June 16, 2010, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge, inter alia, the legality of the determination of the respondent City of Yonkers and its Board of Contract and Supply (hereinafter together the City) awarding a franchise to the respondent A.P.O.W. Towing, LLC (hereinafter A.P.O.W.), pursuant to which A.P.O.W. would provide the City with, among other things, towing and impounding services. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination of a municipality, judicial review “is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Birch Tree Partners, LLC v Town of E. Hampton, 78 AD3d 693, 694; see Matter of Dreier v. LaValle, 29 AD3d 790, 791). A municipality's determination to award contracts “must be upheld so long as it is in accord with the law and has a rational basis” (Matter of Dreier v. Lavalle, 29 AD3d at 791; see Matter of Service Bus Co., Inc. v City School Dist. of Yonkers, 20 AD3d 483, 484; Matter of Kayfield Constr. Corp. v Morris, 15 A.D.2d 373, 378). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contentions, it failed to establish that the subject determination was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Baumann & Sons Buses v Patchogue–Medford Union Free School Dist., 231 A.D.2d 566, 567). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.
DILLON, J.P., COVELLO, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2010–06627 (Index No. 7843 /10)
Decided: June 28, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)