From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christ Gatzonis Electrical v. N.Y.C. School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 2002
297 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-04803

Argued June 10, 2002.

August 5, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated April 2, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and for summary judgment on its counterclaim for $4,710,331.60.

Chris Georgoulis and Associates PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Linda Moreno and Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath, Alan Beckoff, and John P. Woods of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that contracts procured through fraudulent and collusive bidding are void as against public policy, and where work is done pursuant to such illegal municipal contracts, no recovery may be had by the vendor, either on the contract or in quantum meruit, and the municipality can recover from the vendor all amounts paid under such contracts (see S.T. Grand, Inc. v. City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 300, 305; Jered Contr. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187, 193). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is no issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff engaged in a bid-rigging and bribery scheme. Thus, the defendant was entitled to rescind the contracts at issue and seek recoupment for moneys already paid under such contracts (see D'Angelo v. Cole, 67 N.Y.2d 65, 70; Prote Contr. Co. v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 693, 696).

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment even though the motion was not made within the time constraints of the court's preliminary conference order and the parties' subsequent so-ordered stipulation (see Maravalli v. Home Depot U.S.A., 266 A.D.2d 437).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Christ Gatzonis Electrical v. N.Y.C. School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 2002
297 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Christ Gatzonis Electrical v. N.Y.C. School

Case Details

Full title:CHRIST GATZONIS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, INC., appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 5, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Metro. Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Therefore, it contends, the harsh remedy of forfeiture of all amounts paid under the contracts is warranted.…

C.R. Klewin Northeast v. Bridgeport

The reason these contracts are generally not enforced is that if the municipality is allowed to disregard the…