Case Name: New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent, v. Morton C. Griffin, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-06-29
Citations: 201 A.D. 733
Docket Number: 
Parties: New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent, v. Morton C. Griffin, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 733–735

Head Matter:
New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent, v. Morton C. Griffin, Appellant.
Second Department,
June 29, 1922.
Corporations — transportation corporations — action in equity to restrain operation of bus line — consent by municipality given without proper notice of hearing under Railroad Law, § 172, not valid — operator of bus line cannot receive certificate of convenience and necessity from Public Service Commission without first obtaining consent of local authorities — operator enjoined at suit of competing transportation line though municipalities do not object.
A consent given by the common council of a city under section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law, for the operation of a bus line, is irregular and void, where the notice of hearing prescribed by section 172 of the Railroad Law was not given.
The operator of a motor bus line between a city and a village, and within the limits of both, cannot receive a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission without first obtaining a valid consent from the local authorities of both the city and the village as required by section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law.
Accordingly, the operation of a motor bus line will be restrained in an action in equity brought by a railroad operating a transportation fine between the same points, though neither the city nor the village object to the operation of the motor bus line.
Kelly, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Morton C. Griffin, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 8th day of April, 1922, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Orange Trial Term without a jury.
Abram F. Servin, for the appellant.
Elbert N. Oakes, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We are of opinion that the action of the common council of the city of Middletown was irregular in that the notice prescribed by the statute was not given. Section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law provides in effect that unless the operators of the bus line shall obtain the consent of the municipal authorities, they are not competent to receive a certificate of convenience and necessity. We do not doubt that the Public Service Commission had power to grant such certificate, but as defendant had no power to receive it, as to him the situation is the same as if the certificate had never been issued. The village of Liberty having been brought under the operation of section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law, no consent has been obtained by defendant for the operation of the bus line in said village. The injunction order is limited to the operation of the bus line in the city of Middletown and the village of Liberty. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Blackmar, P. J., Rich, Jay cox and Young, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., dissents and reads for reversal.
Added by Laws of 1915, chap. 667, as amd. by Laws of 1919, chap. 307.—[Rep.