Van-Go Transport Co., Inc. v. New York City Board of Education

971 F.Supp. 90 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Van-Go Transport Co., Inc. v. New York City Board of Education

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
971 F.Supp. 90 (1997)

  • Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD

Facts

Van-Go Transport Co., Inc. (Van-Go), Sterling Coach (Sterling), and Celebrity Transit (Celebrity) (together, the companies) were businesses that provided bus and van transportation. The two principals of the companies were Paul and Isaac Dachs (Dachs). Sterling and Celebrity submitted proposals for a contract with the New York City Board of Education (the board). The board did not award the contract to Sterling or Celebrity. In a letter to Sterling and Celebrity, the board cited the possibility of criminal activity, specifically, the offering of gratuities to government officials. A business submitting certain types of bids to the city was required to use the city’s computerized Vendex system, and to submit a completed Vendex questionnaire with its bid. Part of the questionnaire asks whether the bidder had previously been the subject of an investigation. In a later bid submitted through the Vendex system, Celebrity and Dachs were required to disclose that their previous proposal was denied because of the board’s unsubstantiated allegations of offering gratuities to government officials. This information was placed in the data files for all three companies and Dachs. The companies and Dachs (plaintiffs) brought a defamation action against the board (defendant). The board moved for summary judgment on the defamation claim, arguing that the defamatory action was barred because the companies and Dachs placed the defamatory statements into the Vendex system themselves.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Trager, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership