Varsity Transit Inc. v. Saporita — 48 N.Y.2d 767

Majority

p. 767

Varsity Transit Inc., Appellant, v Frederick Saporita, as President of Local Division 1181-1061 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, A.F.L.-C.I.O., et al., Defendants, and Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Argued October 11, 1979;

decided November 13, 1979

p. 768

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Burton S. Cooper and Sheldon Rudoff for appellant.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Lorna Bade Goodman, L. Kevin Sheridan, Joseph F. Bruno and Marian M. Schuman of counsel), for respondent.

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.