Brady v. The Mayor, 18 N.Y. 481 (1858)
A municipality can authorize changes to a public works contract without competitive bidding when the changes are deemed a reasonable necessity by the head of the relevant department, especially when aesthetics and durability are significant concerns, and the added cost does not exceed the statutory limit for bidding requirements.
Summary
Brady, a contractor, sought payment for substituting cherry wood for pine in a restaurant being built in Central Park under a supplemental contract. The city argued that the change was unnecessary and that the cost exceeded $1,000, requiring competitive bidding, which was not done. The court held that the head of the relevant department’s certification of necessity was conclusive absent fraud or collusion. It also determined the added cost of the cherry wood, being less than $1,000, did not trigger the competitive bidding requirement because it only covered the excess value of the new materials and work beyond what the original contract already covered.
Facts
The City of New York contracted for the construction of a restaurant in Central Park.
The original plans specified pine wood for the hall, vestibule, café, wine-room, newels, balusters, and rails of the principal staircase.
A supplemental contract was made to substitute cherry wood for pine in these areas.
The contract price for this substitution was $975.
The head of the relevant city department certified the necessity of the change.
Procedural History
The contractor, Brady, sued the City of New York for payment under the supplemental contract.
The trial court ruled in favor of Brady.
The General Term reversed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the General Term’s reversal.
Issue(s)
Whether the head of the relevant city department’s certification of necessity for the change from pine to cherry wood is conclusive against the city, absent fraud or collusion.
Whether the cost of the change exceeded $1,000, thereby requiring competitive bidding.
Holding
Yes, the certification of necessity is conclusive because as between the contractor and the city, the certificate of the proper officer is conclusive where there is no allegation of fraud or collusion, and where the facts indicate that the necessity certified was a possible incident of the work to be done or the supply to be furnished.
No, the cost of the change did not exceed $1,000 because the original contract already covered the cost of providing the pine fittings; the supplemental contract only covered the added cost of the cherry wood.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the certificate of necessity from the head of the appropriate department is conclusive as between the contractor and the city unless there is fraud or collusion. The court deferred to the department head’s judgment, noting that a restaurant in Central Park should be built to a high standard of aesthetics and durability. The court stated, “A restaurant in that park should not disgrace the standard of its surroundings. It was better not to build it at all than with a cheap parsimony and bad taste.”
Regarding the cost, the court reasoned that the original contract covered the cost of the pine fittings. The supplemental contract only covered the additional expense of substituting cherry wood. Therefore, the relevant cost for competitive bidding purposes was only the $975 for the substitution, not the total cost of the cherry wood plus the original cost of the pine. The court explained, “The order made related to and covered only the excess of value due to the extra work and material. The price of the pine and its fitting went as far as it could in paying for the cherry and its fitting and the new contract began and its expenditure commenced at the point where the old one was exhausted.”