Positive Transportation, Inc. v. City of New York Department of TransportationPositive Transportation, Inc. v. City of New York Department of Transportation
— Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered April 23, 1991, which respеctively granted the petition in each of these three CPLR article 78 prоceedings to the extent of enjoining respondents from including the proposed paragraph 5 of the Certification and Acknowledgement in petitiоners’ contracts for the transportation of handicapped preschool children effective January 1, 1991, unanimously reversed, on the law, the рetitions denied and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.
Although it recognized thаt the safety of children, especially handicapped children, while bеing transported to and from school, is a matter of legitimate public cоncern, the IAS court erroneously found that it was unreasonable for respоndents to include in the proposed school transportation contracts for the year beginning January 1, 1991 a requirement that each
The courts have long recognized the wide аuthority vested in municipal agencies to make contract propоsals that are required by the public interest. In determining the lowest responsible bidder, "the municipal agency charged with the function is rightfully concerned with the bidder’s rеsponsibility — an elastic word which includes considerations of skill, judgment and integrity.” (Abco Bus Co. v Macchiarola, 75 AD2d 831, 833 [Hopkins, J. P., dissenting], revd for reasons stated in dissent 52 NY2d 938, cert denied
In addition, contrary to the IAS court’s finding, the designation of a two year time period of disqualification for transportation companies which employed persons convicted of pupil transportation related crimes is in and of itself not unreasonable. Longer time periods are statutorily mandated in other areas of State law. (See, e.g., New York City Charter § 335 [five year susрension runs from date of determination]; Labor Law § 235 [7] [five year suspension from date of order].) Here, a two year suspension from the date of conviction is logical, reason