Hayes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Citation63 Misc.2d 581,312 N.Y.S.2d 436
PartiesPatricia HAYES, individually on behalf of all others similarily situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Defendant.
Decision Date25 May 1970
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

JOHN R. TENNEY, Justice.

Plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction directing the restoration of electric power because of the defendant's failure to comply with Transportation Corporations Law § 15. The class action was dismissed by consent, and only her action continues. Defendant agrees to restore power pending the court's decision interpreting the statute.

Plaintiff is a tenant in a two-family apartment house. Under her rental agreement, the landlord is to pay for all utilities, particularly, electrical service provided by this defendant. The landlord has paid the electric bill for the premises occupied by the plaintiff. However, the electrical service was turned off because of the non-payment of electric bills on other properties owned by the landlord.

Plaintiff does not question the authority of the defendant to shut off the electricity on this property. Dworman v. Consolidated Edison, 26 A.D.2d 535, 271 N.Y.S.2d 363. The sole issue raised by this proceeding is whether or not plaintiff is entitled to notice before the termination of service. Section 15 of the Transportation Corporations Law states:

'(1) If Any person supplied with * * * electric light shall neglect or refuse to pay the * * * remuneration due for the same * * * such corporation may discontinue the supply of * * * electric light to the premises of such person * * *. But the supply of * * * electric light shall not be discontinued for non-payment of bills rendered for service until and after a five-day written notice has been served upon such person * * * addressed to such person at premises where service is rendered.' (Emphasis Supplied)

Defendant contends that it fulfilled its obligation when it sent the notice to the landlord. Since he is the person contracting and paying for the service, he is the only one entitled to notice. This argument is rejected. The tenant as a user of the service is also entitled to notice consistent with Section 15.

The statute refers to 'any person supplied' with the service. Certainly, the tenant fits that description. As a further safeguard, the law requires that the notice be delivered in person or to the 'premises where service is rendered'.

It is conceivable that personal notice to each tenant could create problems for the utility. This is particularly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Montalvo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1981
    ... ... Power to the People' include constitutional procedural due ... Kiley, 470 F.Supp. 87 aff'd 614 F.2d 1285 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dept. of Energy, 469 F.Supp. 1119 Watergate II ... Lilco, 76 Misc.2d 247, 349 N.Y.S.2d 963, Hayes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 63 Misc.2d 581, 312 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
  • People v. Meyer
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • July 10, 1970
  • Hayes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1972

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT