June 13, 2013
In re Robert J. Troeller, etc., Petitioner-Appellant,
New York City Department of Education, et al., Respondents-Respondents, Temco Service Industries, Inc., An Additional Party.
Spivak Lipton LLP, New York (Adrian D. Healy of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondents.
Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter, Clark, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 23, 2012, denying the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 for an order declaring respondents' practice of assigning public work to Temco Service Industries, Inc., without satisfying competitive bidding requirements, violative of General Municipal Law § 103 and Education Law § 2556(10), and granting respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the cross motion denied.
Petitioner established its standing by showing "injury in fact": Local 891 members at schools where custodial services are assigned to Temco without the requisite competitive bidding will suffer a loss of work and income (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 211 ; Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 75 A.D.3d 412, 413 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of District Council No. 9, Intl. Bhd. of Painters & Allied Trades v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 115 Misc.2d 810, 813 [Sup Ct, NY County 1982], affd 92 A.D.2d 791 [1st Dept 1983]). Petitioner is also within the zone of interest of the competitive bidding statutes here at issue (see General Municipal Law § 103; Education Law § 2556; District Council No. 9, 115 Misc.2d at 813).
Petitioner has also shown associational standing, since, crediting the petition's allegations, Local 891 members at schools where custodial services are assigned to Temco without the requisite competitive bidding would have individual standing to sue, Local 891 is "an appropriate representative" of its members' employment interests, and the "participation in the proceeding of all interested individual members of [the union] is not necessary to afford complete relief" (see Mulgrew, 75 A.D.3d at 413; Nurse Anesthetists, 2 N.Y.3d at 211).
We have considered respondents' contentions relating to mootness and justiciability and find them unavailing.