Eve v. Power Authority of State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1986 |
| Parties | Arthur O. EVE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. POWER AUTHORITY OF the STATE of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
C.J. Brennan, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
J.D. Feinberg, T.G. Rohback, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, KASSAL and WALLACH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 17, 1986, which denied defendants' motions to convert this declaratory judgment action into an Article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motions granted and the action converted to an Article 78 proceeding.
Defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ("Niagara Mohawk") is a public utility company which provides gas and electric service in upstate and western New York. Its rates are subject to regulation by defendant Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Defendant New York State Power Authority ("Power Authority") is a public authority which generates, sells and transmits low-cost hydroelectric power to Niagara Mohawk, which, in turn, resells to its residential and industrial customers. Any savings to Niagara Mohawk by reason of its utilization of the low-cost Power Authority-generated power, must be passed on to residential customers under Public Authorities Law § 1005(5).
On April 20, 1984, Niagara Mohawk filed proposed rate increases with the PSC, which scheduled formal hearings to determine the reasonableness of the proposed electric rates. Plaintiff New York Community Action Network ("NYCAN") was one of fourteen intervenors in that proceeding. Evidentiary hearings, presided over by two administrative law judges, were held during the period May 17, 1984 to November 2, 1984 and resulted in 5,671 pages of transcript and the admission of 322 exhibits. At the hearings, NYCAN sought to prove that Niagara Mohawk did not properly compute the pass-along benefits to residential customers derived from the purchase of hydroelectric power from the Power Authority and, therefore, Niagara Mohawk's allocation of such credits violated the terms of Public Authorities Law § 1005(5). After 27 days of hearings, the PSC rejected NYCAN's proposal and approved Niagara Mohawk's "embedded cost of service" study, used to allocate costs to customers. The Commission concluded that (1) it did not have jurisdiction to make adjustments to rates already set by the Power Authority under its contract with Niagara Mohawk; (2) the existing method of allocation was fair and accorded residential customers the full benefits and credits of Power Authority hydroelectric power to which they were entitled; and (3) the method proposed by NYCAN to determine the allocation of hydropower savings was cumbersome, inaccurate and, in the long run, unlikely to effect changes in the allocation of costs to residential customers.
Thereupon, plaintiffs commenced this action for declaratory judgment relief, inter alia, seeking declarations that (a) NYCAN is a third party beneficiary of the contract between the Power Authority and Niagara Mohawk; (b) the PSC decision approving Niagara Mohawk's rates violated Public Authorities Law § 1005(5); (c) the statutory and contractual violation unlawfully deprived plaintiffs of their property; and (d) for an injunction, enjoining Niagara Mohawk and the Power Authority from failing to comply with the contract in terms of passing along the savings derived from the purchase of hydropower.
After service of an answer, defendants moved to convert the action to an Article 78 proceeding. Special Term denied the motion, concluding that the fixation of rates was a legislative act, reviewable by an action for declaratory judgment relief, not in an Article 78 proceeding and, therefore, a declaratory judgment action to review the rate-making decision was proper.
We disagree and, accordingly, reverse and convert the action to an Article 78 proceeding. While Special Term was correct in observing that an Article 78 proceeding is an improper vehicle to challenge a legislative act (Press v. County of Monroe, 50 N.Y.2d 695, 702, 431 N.Y.S.2d 394, 409 N.E.2d 870; Matter of Lakeland Water District v. Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 400, 407, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 855), it overlooked the fact that the PSC determination, made after a statutorily required hearing, which was extensive and protracted, was an administrative determination reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding, not by an action for declaratory judgment relief (Matter of Lakeland Water District v. Onondaga County Water Auth.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. v. McBarnette
...of Klein v. Axelrod, 54 N.Y.2d 818, 443 N.Y.S.2d 653, 427 N.E.2d 950, affg. 81 A.D.2d 935, 439 N.Y.S.2d 510; cf., Eve v. Power Auth., 123 A.D.2d 532, 506 N.Y.S.2d 700 [relying on Lakeland distinction premised on notice and hearing requirements]; but cf., Lenihan v. City of New York, 85 A.D.......
-
Owners Committee on Elec. Rates, Inc. v. Public Service Com'n of State of N.Y.
...upon an interpretation of CPLR 217, which the parties concede is the governing statute herein (see, e.g., Eve v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 123 A.D.2d 532, 534, 506 N.Y.S.2d 700). CPLR 217 provides, in pertinent part, * * * a proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within ......