Case ID: misc2d_186/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[721 NYS2d 436]
    MMCM Corp., Doing Business as Miguel Malena, Respondent, v Con Edison, Appellant. Malena Auto Glass Corp., Respondent, v Con Edison, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    September 25, 2000
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Richard, W. Babinecz, New York City (Helman R. Brook of counsel), for appellant. MMCM Corp., respondent pro se. Malena Auto Glass Corp., respondent pro se.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgments entered October 18, 1999 reversed, without costs, and actions dismissed.

Liability was improperly imposed below, since it was not shown that the interruption of plaintiffs’ electrical service resulted from defendant Con Edison’s “gross negligence or willful misconduct” as required by the defendant’s filed tariff (see, Lockwood v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 112 AD2d 495; Lee v Consolidated Edison Co., 98 Misc 2d 304). Moreover, there is no competent proof in the record to support the awards of damages. Since plaintiffs cannot prevail “according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (CCA 1807), the small claims actions must be dismissed.

McCooe, J. P., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.