I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 458 N.E.2d 1246 (N.Y. 1983). · Go Syfert
I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 458 N.E.2d 1246 (N.Y. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Terraferma Electrical Construction Co. v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 2006-06-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Terraferma Electrical Construction Co. v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Janvey & Sons v County of Nassau, 60 NY2d 887, 889 [1983]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sodexho Management, Inc. v. Nassau Health Care Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Janvey & Sons v County of Nassau, 60 NY2d 887, 889 [1983]; Matter of Sicoli & Massaro v Grand Is.
cited Cited "see" Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
Auth., supra; accord, Janvey & Sons v County of Nassau, 90 AD2d 807 , revd on other grounds 60 NY2d 887 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Acme Bus Corp. v. Board of Education
NY · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Auth., supra, at 149-150; see also, Janvey & Sons v County of Nassau, 60 NY2d 887, 889 ; Matter of Baumann & Sons Buses v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 1061 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
I. Janvey & Sons, Inc., Respondent,
v.
County of Nassau Et Al., Respondents, and Halbro/Control Industries, Inc., Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 22, 1983.
458 N.E.2d 1246
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Jack E. Hollenberg and Bruce H. Belsky for appellant., A. Thomas Levin for I. Janvey & Sons, Inc., respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye Concur.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Special Term reinstated.

It was petitioner’s burden to establish that the contract had been improperly awarded to Halbro. The petition charged that Halbro’s bid failed to include required spectrophotometer prints and that its products did not meet performance standards. The papers submitted to Special Term established, however, that Halbro submitted prints as required by the bid notice and failed to indicate in what respects its products did not meet the bid specifications. Moreover, the bids having been solicited on the basis of Johnson products “or equal,” and petitioner having submitted bids for Johnson products, the conclusory statement of the county’s buyer that petitioner was the only vendor meeting specifications was not binding on the commissioner and was not sufficient to meet petitioner’s burden.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County, reinstated in a memorandum.