Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
E.W. Howell Co., LLC v. City Univ. Constr. Fund
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 2761; 149 A.D.3d 479; 53 N.Y.S.3d 260Docket: 3674 653551/15
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 11, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
E.W. Howell Co. LLC v. City Univ. Constr. Fund addresses the dismissal of a complaint concerning the bidding process for a public works contract for a performing arts center at Brooklyn College. The City University Construction Fund (CUCF), a public benefit corporation, issued a request for proposals in 2008 for construction management services, which were awarded to Hill International, Inc. E.W. Howell Co. LLC, a plaintiff, was subsequently subcontracted by Hill for general construction work. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked taxpayer standing to sue CUCF and its board members. Notably, State Finance Law § 123-b does not apply to public benefit corporations like CUCF, which operate independently from the state despite performing governmental functions. The court emphasized that even if the law applied, the plaintiffs' claims related to the procurement process rather than the expenditure of funds. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs could not establish common-law taxpayer standing, as they failed to demonstrate that denying this standing would obstruct judicial review of the contract. The dismissal included the invalidation of the subcontract's alternate dispute provision, with the court ruling that Hill's dual role did not create an inherent conflict, as disputes were also subject to oversight by CUNY officials. The court ruled that since the plaintiffs did not exhaust available dispute resolution procedures, their remaining claims against Hill, based on alleged breaches of the subcontract, were also dismissed. The court considered and rejected the plaintiffs’ other arguments as well.