Western New York Motor Lines, Inc. v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Authority

• Decision Date: 30 January 1973
• Docket Number: ROCHESTER-GENESEE
• Parties: WESTERN NEW YORK MOTOR LINES, INC., a/k/a Empire State Trailways, Plaintiff, v.REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and Regional Transit Service, Incorporated, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 252

340 N.Y.S.2d 252

72 Misc.2d 712

WESTERN NEW YORK MOTOR LINES, INC., a/k/a Empire State Trailways, Plaintiff, v. ROCHESTER-GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and Regional Transit Service, Incorporated, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Monroe County.

Jan. 30, 1973.

Harris, Beach & Wilcox, Rochester, for plaintiff (James M. Hartman, Rochester, of counsel).

Goldstein, Goldman, Kessler & Underberg, Rochester, for defendants (Thomas G. Dignan, Rochester, of counsel).

DECISION

JOSEPH G. FRITSCH, Justice:

The plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants from commencing and/or continuing bus service between the City of Rochester, New York and the Village of Geneseo, New York, or Geneseo State College; and enjoining and restraining the defendants from overriding, overrunning or competing with plaintiff in any manner with respect to, or interfering with plaintiff's operation of, any bus route upon which plaintiff now operates bus service and which passes through the Village of Geneseo, New York or to Geneseo State College or any such bus route which plaintiff may in the future operate, and from attempting to divert or interfere with any passengers or other business which plaintiff may carry on any such bus route, pending the decision of the action for a permanent injunction.

The plaintiff, Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., a/k/a Empire State Trailways, hereinafter referred to as 'Trailways', is a private New York corporation, a common carrier engaged in the business of providing bus transportation for the public to and from various localities in western New York and elsewhere out of the state. It is operating under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission in operating its bus service between Rochester and Geneseo, New York. Trailways has, since 1939, provided local or intermediate bus service between Rochester and Geneseo, New York. Such service is a vital part of a larger service provided to the public to localities beyond Geneseo and Rochester into Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., all of which bus service forms an integral part of Trailways' total service and thus its business. The plaintiff claims it has never received complaints of inadequacy of such service.

The defendants, Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority' is a public benefit corporation existing under the laws of the State of New York. The defendant, Regional Transit Service, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'RTS' is a subsidiary of the Authority and is also a public benefit corporation. Both defendants, who operate public transportation facilities, derive their powers from the Public Authorities Law of the State of New York. They contend that, after receiving numerous inquiries and requests from the public, the President of the State University College of Arts & Science at Geneseo and the County Board of Supervisors of Livingston County, for the establishment of a 'Park and Ride' commuter service between Rochester and Geneseo, New York, they determined by study that there was a need for such requested specialized commuter service between said points and, accordingly, they established such service known as 'Park and Ride' effective January 15, 1973.

It is Trailways' contention that if the Authority and RTS are allowed to operate this service between Rochester and Geneseo, it will funnel off the local and intermediate traffic which is necessary for Trailways to continue its bus service to the distant points south of Geneseo, and it would, therefore, not be in the public interest and irreparable harm would be caused Trailways therefrom. Trailways further claims it has already been irreparably damaged as to good will and reputation by the defendants' announced plans and action. It is further the contention of the plaintiff that the direct competition from the defendant on the Rochester-Geneseo route is without the consent of either the New York State Department of Transportation or the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and is in direct contravention of the provisions under which it receives federal assistance and is, therefore, being undertaken in violation of the Public Authorities Law of the State of New York, the Transportation Law of the State of New York and such regulations as the Department of Transportation of the State of New York may have promulgated and the Urban Mass Transportation Act to which defendants are subject and are bound to adhere.

It is the contention of the Authority and RTS that its 'Park and Ride' service does not conflict directly with the service of the plaintiff, either in form or frequency, and that it does not have to make application as would a private omnibus corporation to the Department of Transportation for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under the Transportation Law, and that the use and involvement of federal funding is irrelevant to the motion herein. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate facts sufficient to show it will be irreparably injured or that it has a clear right to injunctive relief and further contend that they will suffer damage if enjoined because of the expense in excess of $5,000.00 already incurred by them in developing and advertising the commencement of the service.

To grant the plaintiff a preliminary injunction Trailways must show a clear legal right thereto as well as a firm showing that it will suffer irreparable injury. This principle was clearly stated by Justice Gabrielli in Etter v. Littwitz, 47 Misc.2d 473 at page 476, 262 N.Y.S.2d 924 at page 928, as follows:

'The court has no inherent power to grant a preliminary injunction (Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 77 N.E. 657) and the authority therefor must be found in the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the applicable provisions of which must be fully complied with. Kleinman v. Kleinman, 283 App.Div. 1063, 131 N.Y.S.2d (208), 210. These provisions as set forth in Article 63 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, among other requirements, mandate that in an action for an injunction, in order to obtain the requested relief in advance of trial, the plaintiffs show a clear legal right thereto, as well as a firm showing of irreparable injury to the movants. De Candido v. Young Stars, 10 A.D.2d 922, 200 N.Y.S.2d 695.

It has long been the rule that the burden of establishing the right to the drastic relief of a preliminary injunction is upon the moving party or parties. Park Terrace Caterers v. McDonough, 9 A.D.2d 113, 191 N.Y.S.2d 1001; Pine Hill-Kingston Bus Corp. v. Davis, 225 App.Div. 182, 232 N.Y.S. 536; Maxwell Co. v. Cusack Co., 200 App.Div. 610, 193 N.Y.S. 449.'

In view therefore of the burden which Trailways has, the theory and merits of the plaintiff's cause of action as stated in its complaint and as presented in its moving papers should be examined. In essence, plaintiff's cause of action is predicated on the theory that the defendants are acting in violation of the statutes and laws and regulations of the State of New York and the United States in that they have failed to obtain the necessary approvals and follow the procedure required before they can begin bus service between Rochester and Geneseo, New York. (See paragraphs 12 through 21 of the complaint; and paragraphs 7, 18 and 19 of the affidavit of T. R. Hicks, sworn to January 11, 1973.)

Title (14)--11--B of the Public Authorities Law, which is the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority Act, recites in § 1299--ee the purposes of the Authority as follows:

'1. The purposes of the authority shall be the continuance, further development and improvement of transportation and other services related thereto within the Rochester-Genesee regional transportation district, by railroad, omnibus, marine and air, in accordance with the provisions of this title.

'2. It is...