92 N.Y.2d 244 (1998)
Private utility interference work does not constitute “public work” under General Municipal Law § 103(1) when municipalities determine the lowest responsible bidder by combining assessments for utility work and street reconstruction, and mayoral bypass authority does not override competitive bidding laws.
Summary
Diamond Asphalt Corp. challenged New York City’s award of public works contracts, arguing that the city improperly combined bids for public street reconstruction with private utility interference work. The city had entered into a joint bidding agreement with utility companies, awarding contracts to the lowest aggregate bidder, even if their bid for the city’s portion was not the lowest. Diamond, the lowest bidder on the City’s portion, sued. The Court of Appeals held that utility interference work remains private, regardless of a joint bidding agreement, and that the Mayor’s bypass authority did not supersede General Municipal Law § 103(1)’s competitive bidding requirements.
Facts
Prior to 1992, utility companies contracted separately for interference work related to city street reconstruction projects. The City believed this caused delays and inflated costs, as contractors often low-bid the City work and then overcharged the utilities. The City then entered a joint bidding agreement with utility companies (Con Edison, New York Telephone, and Empire City Subway) to include utility work in public contracts. The city would solicit bids for all work, award to the lowest aggregate bidder, pay the contractor, and then be reimbursed by the utilities for their portion, plus administrative fees.
Procedural History
Diamond Asphalt Corp. sued to annul the contracts awarded under the joint bidding agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding utility work was not public work, but the Mayor had bypass authority. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the utility work was public work and the Mayor properly exercised bypass authority. The Court of Appeals granted Diamond leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether private utility interference work constitutes “public work” under General Municipal Law § 103(1) when municipalities determine the lowest responsible bidder by combining amounts bid for utility work and street reconstruction work?
2. Whether the Mayor’s bypass selection authority overrides General Municipal Law § 103(1)?
Holding
1. No, because utility interference work remains private even when included in a joint bidding agreement.
2. No, because the Mayor’s bypass authority, as revised in the 1989 City Charter, does not qualify as a pre-September 1, 1953 local law, as required by General Municipal Law § 103(1).
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that neither General Municipal Law § 103(1) nor its legislative history defines