From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of New York Edison Co. v. Maltbie

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 19, 1936
271 N.Y. 103 (N.Y. 1936)

Opinion

Argued March 5, 1936

Decided May 19, 1936

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Charles G. Blakeslee, John J. Donohue and John T. Ryan for appellants. Alvin C. Reis, Clyde S. Bailey and John D. Benton for National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, amicus curiae. Joseph M. Proskauer and J. Alvin Van Bergh for The New York Edison Company et al., respondents. Jackson A. Dykman, Sigourney B. Olney and George A. Wood for The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, respondent. William M. Wherry, James C. Forsyth and Russell H. Neilson for New York Water Service Corporation et al., respondents.

Jacob H. Goetz, William L. Ransom, Henry S. Reeder, Richard Joyce Smith, Edward J. Crummey, Henry R. Frost and Elmer B. Sanford for Consolidated Gas Company of New York et al., respondents. Neile F. Towner for Consolidated Water Company of Utica, respondent. Edmund B. Naylon and Jesse J. Holland for New York State Electric and Gas Corporation et al., respondents.

Elton H. Beals for Rockland Light and Power Company, respondent.

Edward S. Pinney and Herbert J. Jacobi for Binghamton Gas Works et al., respondents.

Oliver H. Payne for Spring Valley Water Works and Supply Company, respondent.

Earl L. Dey for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, respondent.



We agree with the Appellate Division in its construction of the orders of the Public Service Commission. On that construction, the orders were more than general administrative or legislative rules. They directly interfered with private property rights of these respondents. Such an order may be made only after a hearing and, since it involves a judicial act, is subject to review on certiorari.

Nothing here decided limits the power of the Commission to prescribe uniform methods of keeping accounts, records and books. (Public Service Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 48], § 66, subd. 4.) Under that power, all the information here sought could have been elicited from the respondents by directions of the Commission that would have been open to none of the objections to its present orders.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is answered in the affirmative and the others in the negative.

CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur; CROUCH, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of New York Edison Co. v. Maltbie

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 19, 1936
271 N.Y. 103 (N.Y. 1936)
Case details for

Matter of New York Edison Co. v. Maltbie

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of THE NEW YORK EDISON COMPANY et al., Respondents, against…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 19, 1936

Citations

271 N.Y. 103 (N.Y. 1936)
2 N.E.2d 277

Citing Cases

Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Maltbie

In the literature of accounting, including public utility accounting, the term, "accrued depreciation", is by…

Matter of Rochester Gas El. Corp. v. Maltbie

The Court of Appeals and this court have passed upon the validity of "straight line" depreciation. In Matter…