Case ID: ny_271/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of The New York Edison Company et al., Respondents, against Milo R. Maltbie et al., Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.
    (Argued March 5, 1936;
    decided May 19, 1936.)
    
      
      Charles C. Blakeslee, John J. Donohue and John T. Ryan for appellants.
    
      
      Alvin C. Reis, Clyde S. Bailey and John D. Benton for National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, amicus curise.
    
    
      Joseph M. Proskauer and J. Alvin Van Bergh for The New York Edison Company et ah, respondents.
    
      
      Jackson A. Dykman, Sigourney B. Olney and George A. Wood for The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, respondent.
    
      
      William M. Wherry, James C. Forsyth and Russell H. Neilson for New York Water Service Corporation et al., respondents.
    
      Jacob H. Goetz, William L. Ransom, Henry S. Reeder, Richard Joyce Smith, Edward J. Crummey, Henry R. Frost and Elmer B. Sanford for Consolidated Gas Company of New York et al., respondents.
    
      
      Neile F. Towner for Consolidated Water Company of Utica, respondent.
    
      
      Edmund B. Naylon and Jesse J. Holland for New York State Electric and Gas Corporation et al., respondents.
    
      Elton H. Beals for Rockland Light and Power Company, respondent.
    
      Edward S. Pinney and Herbert J. Jacobi for Binghamton Gas Works et al., respondents.
    
      Oliver H. Payne for Spring Valley Water Works and Supply Company, respondent.
    
      Earl L. Dey for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division in its construction of the orders of the Public Service Commission. On that construction, the orders were more than general administrative or legislative rules. They directly interfered with private property rights of these respondents. Such an order may be made only after a hearing and, since it involves a judicial act, is subject to review on certiorari.

Nothing here decided limits the power of the Commission to prescribe uniform methods of keeping accounts, records and books. (Public Service Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 48], § 66, subd. 4.) Under that power, all the information here sought could have been elicited from the respondents by directions of the Commission that would have been open to none of the objections to its present orders.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The first question certified is answered in the affirmative and the others in the negative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.