Staatsburg Water Co. v. Staatsburg Fire Dist.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1987
• Citation: 517 N.Y.S.2d 192,131 A.D.2d 832
• Parties: STAATSBURG WATER COMPANY, Appellant, v. STAATSBURG FIRE DISTRICT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 192

517 N.Y.S.2d 192

131 A.D.2d 832

STAATSBURG WATER COMPANY, Appellant, v.STAATSBURG FIRE DISTRICT, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 29, 1987.

Read & Laniado, Albany (Kevin R. Brocks, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Kessler, Hyde Park (Valentino T. Sammarco, of counsel), for respondent.

David E. Blabey, Albany (Marily Mann Faulkner, of counsel), for New York State Public Service Com'n amicus curiae.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and HARWOOD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover money due and owing for fire hydrant charges, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County(Hillery, J.), dated July 22, 1986, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination of the same court(Gurahian, J.), dated February 22, 1985, which denied its motion for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of its complaint, and for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the order dated February 22, 1985, is vacated, the motion is granted, the ad damnum clause of the complaint is amended to read that the sum of $33,256.04, plus an additional $328.77 per month subsequent to April 30, 1986, is due and owing the plaintiff from the defendant, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $33,256.04 plus an additional $328.77 per month from April 30, 1986.

After a hearing, the Public Service Commission on March 5, 1986, issued an order which determined the adequacy of the service supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and whether the defendant was justified in withholding payment for that service, the same issues raised in the instant action.As the Public Service Commission is an appropriate body to determine these questions (see, Public Service Law § 89-cVan Dussen-Storto Motor Inn v. Rochester Tel. Corp., 42 A.D.2d 400, 402, 348 N.Y.S.2d 404, affd., 34 N.Y.2d 904, 359 N.Y.S.2d 286, 316 N.E.2d 719) and the hearings were conducted utilizing procedures substantially similar to those utilized in a court of law, the determination by the Public Service Commission is conclusive and binding upon the court in this action (see, Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 499, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487).Because the defendant was afforded the opportunity at the hearing...