524 Broadway Corp. v. Lundy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

524 Broadway Corp. v. Lundy

25 A.D.2d 921, 270 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4165

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 921 (524 Broadway Corp. v. Lundy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

524 Broadway Corp. v. Lundy, 25 A.D.2d 921, 270 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

In this article 78 proceeding the appeal concerns the dismissal of the petition and &■ judgment and order of Special [922]*922Term confirming the determination of the Public Service Commission which permitted Consolidated Edison to discontinue conjunctional billing to the petitioner. • The owner of the property, in order to refinance a mortgage on the building, conveyed to a nominee for the purpose of signing a bond and mortgage and ón the .same day she rcconveyed the property -to the petitionerownez\ The element of time or the iiztezzt of the pz’operty owner is not determinative of the right to abolish conjunctional billing but concerns only the issue of identity of the customer of the utility eoznpany. (See Matter of First Sterling Corp. v. Lundy, 14 A D 2d 193, affd. 11 N Y 2d 836; Matter of Falk v. Lundy, 22 A D 2d 726.) Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Herlihy, J.

In this article 78 proceeding the appeal concerns the dismissal of the petition and &■ judgment and order of Special [922]*922Term confirming the determination of the Public Service Commission which permitted Consolidated Edison to discontinue conjunctional billing to the petitioner. • The owner of the property, in order to refinance a mortgage on the building, conveyed to a nominee for the purpose of signing a bond and mortgage and ón the .same day she rcconveyed the property -to the petitionerownez\ The element of time or the iiztezzt of the pz’operty owner is not determinative of the right to abolish conjunctional billing but concerns only the issue of identity of the customer of the utility eoznpany. (See Matter of First Sterling Corp. v. Lundy, 14 A D 2d 193, affd. 11 N Y 2d 836; Matter of Falk v. Lundy, 22 A D 2d 726.) Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 921, 270 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/524-broadway-corp-v-lundy-nyappdiv-1966.