Varsity Transit Inc. v. Saporita
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Brukhman v. Giuliani (N.Y. 2000)
- De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. (N.Y. 2013)
- Staten Island Bus, Inc. v. New York City Department of Education (New York Supreme Court 2013)
- De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Brukhman v. Giuliani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- New York State Chapter, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Vulcan Affordable Housing Corp. v. Hartnett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Tenalp Construction Corp. v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Brian Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato-Meridian Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (N.Y. 1985)
- People v. Douglas (New York Supreme Court 1984)
- Penfield Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Roberts (New York Supreme Court 1983)
- Board of Education v. Bimco Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Abco Bus Co. v. Macchiarola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division that the inclusion of certain requirements in bid specifications contained in prior public contracts does not comprise an implied representation that similar requirements will be mandated with respect to subsequent contracts. The possibility that the needs and requirements of a municipality will change so as to render useless investments made in the hope that those requirements would remain constant is a normal risk of doing business which may not be shifted to the municipality by application of an estoppel theory based on no more than is alleged in this action. Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s other arguments.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.