Amato v. NYC Dept. of Parks & Recreation

Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments    | SEE FULL TEXT OPINION

Justice Geoffrey Wright

Plaintiffs sought leave to reargue defendants' previously granted motion for dismissal of the complaint. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPC) entered into a contract with contractor Nasdi LLC. Nasdi requested that plaintiff City Safety Compliance (CSC) be approved to perform subcontract work on the project. Nasdi was informed CSC would not be approved as it was affiliated with Testwell Labs, a company barred from public work due to a fraud conviction. Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to reargument as the court did not consider the burden of the municipal defendants to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for libel, among others. The court stated it was a mistake to assume an argument was "overlooked" as it was not specifically referenced, noting it specifically stated on the cover sheet of the prior order that after careful consideration it found the municipal defendants met their burden in seeking dismissal of all four claims as they arose from DPC's failure to approve CSC as a subcontractor. It agreed with defendants that plaintiffs' "true claim" was of a disappointed bidder on a public contract, noting plaintiffs merely reiterated the same arguments made on their original motion rather than point out relevant facts misapprehended. Thus, reargument was denied.

Welcome to ALM. You have read 0 out of 0 free articles this month

Get 2 months of unlimited access FREE

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202587240200

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.