IN RE: VALUE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: VALUE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellant, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Respondents.

Decided: July 31, 2000

THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ANITA R. FLORIO and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ. Schlachter & Mauro, Commack, N.Y. (Reynold A. Mauro of counsel), for appellant. Richard S. Leffer, Chief Deputy County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tara Talmadge of counsel), for respondent County of Nassau. Bee Eisman & Ready, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter M. Fishbein of counsel), for respondent Hudson General, LLC.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent County of Nassau, awarding a transportation management contract to the respondent Hudson General, L.L.C., the petitioner Value Management Consultants, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated May 7, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The petitioner failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the transportation management contract at issue was improperly awarded (see, Matter of Acme Bus Corp. v. Bd. of Educ. of Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 51, 55, 666 N.Y.S.2d 996, 689 N.E.2d 890).   The determination of the respondent County of Nassau to award the contract to the respondent Hudson General, L.L.C. (hereinafter Hudson), notwithstanding that Hudson was not the lowest bidder, was in accord with the law and had a rational basis (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230-231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321;  Matter of Chadha v. County of Nassau, 248 A.D.2d 465, 466-467, 669 N.Y.S.2d 370).   Hudson had provided transportation services for the County since 1986, had established an excellent reputation and knowledge of the transportation program, and had proposed a use of computerized routing and scheduling systems which was more cost effective and efficient than that submitted by the petitioner.

Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any factual issues requiring a hearing.   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Copied to clipboard