Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resources Commission
| Citation | 301 N.Y.S.2d 935,32 A.D.2d 1006 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SUNHILL WATER CORP., Petitioner, v. WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1969 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Melvyn Tanenbaum, Huntington, for petitioner.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Dunton F. Tynan, Albany, of counsel), for respondent, Water Resources Commission.
VanNostrand & Martin, Amityville (L. VanNostrand, Jr., Amityville, of counsel), for respondent, Suffolk County Water Authority.
Schechter & Schechter, Smithtown (Eugene L. Wishod, Smithtown, of counsel), for intervenor, Levitt and Sons Incorporated.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and AULISI, STALEY, COOKE and GREENBLOTT, JJ.
Proceeding under CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of the Water Resources Commission denying the application of petitioner for approval of its plans for the supply of water to a subdivision at Selden in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County.
Petitioner is a domestic private water corporation organized pursuant to the Transportation Corporations Law with an assigned water service area of 350 acres in the Town of Brookhaven and presently with 912 service connections. Its system consists of mains, two 1,000 gallon per minute wells and two 15,000 gallon hydropneumatic tanks for storage. It made application for permission to extend its service area to include a tract of about 410 acres known as 'Strathmore Village' developed and owned by Levitt and Sons, Incorporated, same being outside of petitioner's authorized service area and within the area previously assigned by the Water Resources Commission to the Suffolk County Water Authority. The latter opposes the application on the grounds that it can better serve the area and that the area was previously assigned to it.
After a public hearing the commission denied the application, concluding that the proposed plans are not justified by public necessity nor are they just and equitable to the other municipalities and civil divisions of the State affected thereby, particular consideration being given to their present and future necessities for sources of supply. There was substantial evidence to support the commission's decision, including its finding that the vast facilities of the Authority, its sources of supply, storage, the integrated system of distribution mains along with the method of operation, maintenance and supervision of its system far outweigh the services that could be provided by the applicant. There was proof of the Authority's interconnected system of 22 wells, storage facilities with a capacity of 5.5 million gallons, laboratory for water testing, system of telemetering and maintenance crews on a full time basis. The determinations of the Water Resources Commission within its competency and authority are not easily undone, certainly not merely because one corporation seeking to use the water resources of the State contends that it, rather than some other corporation, should have obtained the Commission's approval--to the extent that, where it acts with due administration of law, the courts will not interfere with a determination of the Commission in allocating a water supply, involving discretion and the exercise of judgment, when that determination is supported by substantial evidence (Swan Lake Water Corp. v. Suffolk County Water Auth., 20 N.Y.2d 81, 85--86, 281 N.Y.S.2d 775, 778, 228 N.E.2d 773, 776; Matter of Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Water Power & Control Comm., 267 N.Y. 265, 196 N.E. 51; Matter of Swan Lake Water Corp. v. Water Resources Comm., 31 A.D.2d 44, 295 N.Y.S.2d 83; Matter of Suffolk County Water Auth. v. Water Power & Control Comm. of State of N.Y., 12 A.D.2d 198, 202, 209 N.Y.S.2d 978, 981).
In 1962 the commission,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dondi v. Jones
...process * * *' (1972 Public Papers of Governor Rockefeller, p. 1107, emphasis added; see Matter of Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resources Comm., 32 A.D.2d 1006, 1008, 301 N.Y.S.2d 935, 937; Browne v. City of New York, 213 App.Div. 206, 233, 211 N.Y.S. 306, 330, affd. 241 N.Y. 96, 149 N.E. 2......
-
Robert M. Schneider, M.D., P.C. v. Licciardi, 19-0120
...346 [3d Dept. 1990], aff’d 76 N.Y.2d 993, 564 N.Y.S.2d 713, 565 N.E.2d 1264 [1990] ; Matter of Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resources Commn ., 32 A.D.2d 1006, 1008, 301 N.Y.S.2d 935 [3d Dept. 1969] ). As both parties rely significantly on the demutualization process approved by the New York......
-
Lee v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York
...in January, 1978 (see Matter of Siwek v. Mahoney, 39 N.Y.2d 159, 383 N.Y.S.2d 238, 347 N.E.2d 599; Matter of Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resources Comm., 32 A.D.2d 1006, 301 N.Y.S.2d 935; Public Service Law, § 16). Defendant cites the State Report in its reply brief, pp. I take judicial no......
-
Albano v. Kirby
...Laws, c. 47; Hunter v. New York, Ontario & Western R.R. Co., 116 N.Y. 615, 621, 23 N.E. 9, 10; Matter of Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resourc Comm., 32 A.D.2d 1006, 1008, 301 N.Y.S.2d 935, 938), has interpreted its rules as we view the one emanating from Suffolk Tested by these canons of co......