American Woman's Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co.

New York Supreme Court

American Woman's Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co.

145 Misc. 316, 259 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1277

DecidedOctober 19, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 316 (American Woman's Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Woman's Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co., 145 Misc. 316, 259 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1277 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McGoldrick, J.

Petitioner asks for a peremptory order of mandamus to direct The New York Edison Company to furnish at petitioner’s expense direct current (to be used only in case of emergency). The Public Service Commission has so directed. The Edison Company has offered alternating current service.

It is quite true that on this application the order of the Public Service Commission may not be reviewed. It is now up for review on certiorari. To grant peremptory mandamus the court must find that petitioner has a clear legal right, which is not here established. Mandamus is not a legal right; it is an equitable favor. The company attacks the order of the Commission as wholly -unauthorized. Petitioner on the argument recognized the logical dilemma of this situation and asked for a peremptory mandamus for temporary service.

It is entitled to a full peremptory mandamus or nothing. I know of no such order as a quasi-peremptory mandamus.

The motion is denied with leave to renew when and if in the certiorari proceedings .it is decided in the first instance that the order is justified.

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

McGoldrick, J.

Petitioner asks for a peremptory order of mandamus to direct The New York Edison Company to furnish at petitioner’s expense direct current (to be used only in case of emergency). The Public Service Commission has so directed. The Edison Company has offered alternating current service.

It is quite true that on this application the order of the Public Service Commission may not be reviewed. It is now up for review on certiorari. To grant peremptory mandamus the court must find that petitioner has a clear legal right, which is not here established. Mandamus is not a legal right; it is an equitable favor. The company attacks the order of the Commission as wholly -unauthorized. Petitioner on the argument recognized the logical dilemma of this situation and asked for a peremptory mandamus for temporary service.

It is entitled to a full peremptory mandamus or nothing. I know of no such order as a quasi-peremptory mandamus.

The motion is denied with leave to renew when and if in the certiorari proceedings .it is decided in the first instance that the order is justified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 316, 259 N.Y.S. 599, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-womans-realty-corp-v-new-york-edison-co-nysupct-1932.