City of N.Y. v. State of N.Y. Commission on Cable Television
| Decision Date | 08 May 1979 |
| Citation | 47 N.Y.2d 89,390 N.E.2d 293,416 N.Y.S.2d 786 |
| Parties | , 390 N.E.2d 293 In the Matter of the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON CABLE TELEVISION, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Petitioner, the City of New York, in 1970 granted two franchises providing for the operation of cable television systems. In 1975, the franchisees petitioned the city seeking four specific changes in the franchise agreements. While final city approval was pending, the franchisees submitted the four amendments in one application to respondent State Commission on Cable Television, which approved three of the proposals but disapproved the fourth. Subsequently, the city requested reconsideration of this decision, arguing that the commission is without statutory authority to disapprove in part an application to amend a franchise contract. When its efforts proved unsuccessful at the administrative level, the city commenced the present article 78 proceeding. Special Term dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division, adopting a narrow interpretation of the commission's enabling act, concluded that the agency only possesses power to approve or disapprove an amendment in its entirety.
On this appeal, petitioner presses its argument that the applicable legislation should be restrictively construed. Specifically, petitioner contends that since certain provisions of the commission's enabling act seem to contemplate approval or disapproval of an entire amendment application (see Executive Law, § 822, subds. 3, 4, 5), the commission is prohibited from singling out for disapproval one of a number of amendments grouped together in the same application. This reasoning, upon examination, is neither compelling nor convincing.
The Commission on Cable Television, created by the Legislature in 1972, is invested with broad authority to oversee the burgeoning cable television industry. Among its many powers, the agency is expressly authorized to "promulgate, issue, amend and rescind such orders, rules and regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate" to carry out the purposes of the cable television statute (Executive Law, § 816, subd. 1). In fact, no cable television franchise is effective unless it is confirmed by the commission, and "(n)o transfer, renewal or amendment of any franchise" may be accomplished without commission approval (Executive Law, §§ 821, 822). Approval of an amendment application may be made "contingent upon compliance with standards, terms or conditions set by the commission" (Executive Law, § 822, subd. 4). In addition to this enumerated authority, the agency "shall have and may exercise all other powers necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes" of the enabling act (Executive Law, § 816, subd. 5).
An administrative agency, as a creature of the Legislature, is clothed with those powers expressly conferred by its authorizing statute, as well as those required by necessary implication (see, e. g., Finger Lakes Racing Assn. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 45...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juarez v. N.Y.S. Office of Victim Servs.
...Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383, 395, 646 N.Y.S.2d 300, 669 N.E.2d 234 [1996] ; Matter of City of New York v. State of N.Y. Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92–93, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293 [1979] ). But if "the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis," we do not ......
-
Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Cuomo
...emergency package Page 191 [582 N.E.2d 574] of legislation (see, Matter of City of New York v. State of New York Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293; see also, Clark v. Cuomo, 66 N.Y.2d 185, 495 N.Y.S.2d 936, 486 N.E.2d 794, supra). Indeed, none of the l......
-
Lopez v. Evans
...Social Servs., 79 N.Y.2d 197, 203, 581 N.Y.S.2d 628, 590 N.E.2d 213 [1992], quoting Matter of City of New York v. State of N.Y. Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293 [1979] [emphasis added]; see also2 N.Y. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law § 26). For example, in......
-
Leadingage N.Y., Inc. v. Shah
...Lawyers v. Kaye, 96 N.Y.2d 512, 518, 730 N.Y.S.2d 477, 755 N.E.2d 837 [2001] ; Matter of City of New York v. State of N.Y. Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293 [1979] ; Matter of Independent Master Plumbers of Westchester County, Inc. v. Westchester Count......