01-2-4289 In the Matter of the Denial of Tedesco’s Firearms Purchaser ID Card, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Individual appealed the denial of his request for a “second and/or duplicate Firearms Purchaser Identification Card.” The trial judge heard evidence that individual discharged a weapon into a stack of magazine while his wife and sons were in the house. Individual was arrested and admitted he fired the gun because he was depressed and intoxicated. Individual alleged he had resolved his mental health and alcohol issues and completed substance abuse and alcohol treatment but trial judge found that it would be against public health, safety and welfare for him to receive the FPIC. Individual argued the trial judge’s findings were against the weight of the evidence. The court found that there was substantial credible evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s findings.

36-2-4248 SHT Corp. v. County of Somerset, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Respondent solicited bids for towing and storage work for its county prosecutor’s office. Three towing businesses submitted bids with appellant providing the lowest bid. Respondent nonetheless award the contract to the second lowest bid and rejected appellant’s bid as nonresponsive to the bid specifications, which included a warning that: “Failure to sign and give all information in the bid may result in the bid being rejected.” Respondent averred that rejection was based on discovery of issues appellant was having and potential removal from a rotation cycle; respondent did not deem it prudent to waive the defects in the bid proposal. On appeal, appellant sought reversal of the law division’s order upholding respondent’s decision to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. The court affirmed holding appellant was less than candid in its response to the bid questionnaire. The answer “no” to a question, followed by an incomplete account of its history of complaints and pending cases in neighboring municipalities rendered the answer not just nonresponsive, but intentionally evasive. Under these circumstances, respondent was well within its right to reject the bid. Accordingly, the court affirmed.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]