Case Name: Brooklyn Borough Gas Company, Respondent, v. Public Service Commission for the First District et al., Defendants, and Harry E. Lewis, as District Attorney of the County of Kings, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-01-23
Citations: 220 N.Y. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brooklyn Borough Gas Company, Respondent, v. Public Service Commission for the First District et al., Defendants, and Harry E. Lewis, as District Attorney of the County of Kings, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Brooklyn Borough Gas Company, Respondent, v. Public Service Commission for the First District et al., Defendants, and Harry E. Lewis, as District Attorney of the County of Kings, Appellant.
Brooklyn Borough Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 175 App. Div. 684, affirmed.
(Submitted January 9, 1917;
decided January 23, 1917.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial depart ment, entered November 3, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a change of venue. This action is brought by the plaintiff, Brooklyn Borough Gas Company, against the defendants public service commission for the first district, the city of New York, the Kings county district attorney and the attorney-general for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing, as against the plaintiff, the provisions of three laws of the state of New York and of an order of the said public service commission, which laws and order fix the rates at which gas shall be sold by the plaintiff in the thirty-first and thirty-second wards of the borough of Brooklyn, in Kings county, on the ground that the said laws and order are unconstitutional on account of the low rates fixed thereby, and the enforcement thereof would be confiscatory of plaintiff’s property; and especially for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing, as against the plaintiff, the penalties and forfeitures fixed by said laws, among others, for the violation thereof.
The following question was certified: “Is the district attorney of Kings county entitled in this action to demand as matter of right that the action be tried in Kings county ? ”
Harry E. Lewis, District Attorney (Ralph E. Hemstreet of counsel), for appellant.
Edward M. Bassett and W. W. Thompson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, without costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Ouddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Absent: Chase, J.