People ex rel. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of State of New York, Second Dist.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1921
• Citation: 231 N.Y. 1
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, SECOND DISTRICT, et al., Respondents.

231 N.Y. 1

131 N.E. 549

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.

v.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, SECOND DIST.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 22, 1921.

Certiorari by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the New York Central Railroad Company, against the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Second District, to review a determination of the Commission relating to the elimination of a grade crossing and maintenance of roadbed and approaches thereof.From an order dismissing the writ (190 App. Div. 126,179 N. Y. Supp. 438), the relator appeals.

Reversed, and determination of Public Service Commission modified and affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Maurice C. Spratt and H. W. Huntington, both of Buffalo, for appellant.

Ledyard P. Hale, of Albany, for respondent.

POUND, J.

The question is whether the Board of Railroad Commissioners in determining the manner of crossing Clinton street by the railroad yard herein mentioned might impose conditions as to the future maintenance and repair of the approaches to the bridge over the yard, not on the railroad property.

It is unnecessary to recite the details of the long history of the proceedings herein.Briefly, petitioner's predecessor, the Terminal Railway, desiring to construct, in addition to its double-track road on grade, extensive yards in the towns of Cheektowaga and West Seneca several miles in length and nearly half a mile in width, crossing certain highways, including, Clinton street, in West Seneca, by as many as 120 tracks, which yard when completed was to be the largest in the country, made application to the Board of Railroad Commissioners to determine the manner in which the tracks should cross the highway.The Railroad Law (Consol. Laws, c. 49) contained no express provisions dealing with the situation which exists when such a great yard is constructed across highways.It is something different from the construction of the railroad itself across the highway on grade (section 21), in which case it is the duty of the railroad to restore the street ‘to its former state, or to such state as not to have unnecessarily impaired its usefulness' and construct and maintain a roadway across its tracks, and different from the mere crossing of a railroad by a highway by an overhead bridge (section 93), in which case ‘the roadway thereover and the approaches thereto shall be maintained and kept in repair by the municipality having jurisdiction over and in which the same are situated.’The Board of Railroad Commissioners made its order on April 30, 1907, determining that the Clinton street highway grade crossing be changed to an overhead bridge crossing, and that the Terminal Railway of Buffalo should maintain the roadway and sidewalk on the overhead bridge and approaches thereto, irrespective of the provisions of section 64(now section 93) of the Railroad Law.The railway paid all the expense of eliminating the grade crossing, although a small part thereof for the expense of crossing the main tracks might perhaps have been charged to the town and the state to the extent of one-half the total expense incurred for that purpose.Matter of Erie R. Co., 208 N. Y. 486, 490-492,102 N. E. 562.

On the subsequent unsuccessful appeal of the towns from this order the courts sustained the general powers and jurisdiction of the Board of Railroad Commissioners in the matter.Matter of Terminal Railway of Buffalo, 122 App. Div. 59,106 N. Y. Supp. 655;Id., 122 App. Div. 896,106 N. Y. Supp. 659;Id., 192 N. Y. 534, 84 N. E. 1121.The railway did not appeal from any part of the order, but sought unsuccessfully among other modifications to have the Board of Railroad Commissioners, and thereafter the Public Service Commission, which had in 1907 succeeded that Board, modify the original order by providing that the roadways and approaches be maintained pursuant to the statute governing the maintenance of highways in the towns, which is construed as referring to the provisions of section 64(now section 93) of the Railroad Law.

The towns unsuccessfully sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Commission from acting on the second application.People ex rel. Town of West Seneca v. Pub. Service Commission for second Dist., 130 App. Div. 335,114 N. Y. Supp. 636;Id., 195 N. Y. 562, 88 N. E. 1128.Thereafter the railway company proceeded with and completed the work, which was on January 29, 1918, approved by the Public Service Commission.On May 11, 1918, the town of West Seneca filed with the Commission a complaint that the Clinton street roadway and approaches to the bridge were out of repair and that the railway company had refused to make the necessary repairs.On July 30, 1918, the New York Central Railroad, having succeeded to the rights and duties of the Terminal Railway Company, was ordered by the Public Service Commission to make the repairs, and, the Commission thereafter having denied an application for a rehearing, the relator herein sued out a writ of certiorari to review the determination.The Appellate Division dismissed the writ, and the relator appealed to this court.

[1] The...