IN THE MATTER OF TRANSACTIVE CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------------- 3 NO. 141 IN THE MATTER OF CHECK CASHERS
ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (PROCEEDING NO. 2) (AND
ANOTHER RELATED PROCEEDING.)
92 N.Y.2d 579, 706 N.E.2d 1180, 684 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1998)
December 3, 1998
3 No. 140
(98 NY Int. 0157)
Decided December 3, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
Following a competitive bidding process, the New York State Department
of Social Services (DSS) awarded a contract to respondent Citicorp
Services Inc. to create and implement a new system for the
distribution of public assistance benefits including food stamps, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits. Through this new service -- known as
an electronic benefit transfer system (EBTS)-- benefits would be
transferred in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
This appeal challenges the award of an EBTS contract to Citicorp on
the basis of an alleged defective bidding process.
Petitioner-appellants are Transactive Corporation, a subcontractor of
Fleet Financial Group, Inc., a bidder on the project; Check Cashers,
Inc., a trade association, joined by several local check cashing
institutions (collectively "Check Cashers"); and Silvia Rivera, a New
York benefits recipient and taxpayer. We conclude that none of the
petitioners has standing to contest the award of the contract, and
affirm the order of the Appellate Division, but on different grounds.
On April 6, 1995 seven States, identified as the Northeast Coalition
of States, (n.1) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to
research, investigate, design and develop an EBTS. None of these
States was obligated by the Memorandum to enter into an EBTS. Each
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF TRANSACTIVE CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v.
NEW YORK STATE
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
(AND ANOTHER RELATED PROCEEDING.)
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Following a competitive bidding process, the New York State Department of Social Services
This appeal challenges the award of an EBTS contract to Citicorp on the basis of an alleged
Petitioner-appellants are Transactive Corporation, a subcontractor of Fleet Financial Group,
We conclude that none of the petitioners has standing to contest the award of the contract,
In June 1995, New York State, joined the other States in issuing a request for proposals and
The RFP, released on June 22, 1995, notified bidders that all proposals would be reviewed by
A third committee, the Selection Committee, was designated to review the evaluation reports
It also held that Transactive had standing and that DSS had violated provisions of the State
As to the merits of the claim, the court held that DSS had not violated any State Finance Law
Standing Under Society of Plastics
Moreover, petitioners must demonstrate that the injury claimed falls within the zone of
That repercussion would not only create uncertainty in the minds of bidders, but also would
v New York State Dep't of Taxation and Finance (195 AD2d 169, lv denied 84 NY2d 803),
State Finance Law § 123-b Taxpayer Standing
Appellants' claims are not of the kind for which State Finance Law § 123-b confers standing.
Rivera has no standing either pursuant to State Finance Law § 123-b or under the common law
|
