Dworman v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dworman v. Consolidated Edison Co.

26 A.D.2d 535, 271 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3920

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

DecidedJune 23, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 535 (Dworman v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

Dworman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 26 A.D.2d 535, 271 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 16, 1965, granting plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the preliminary injunction vacated, and plaintiff’s application denied. Defendant supplied gas and electricity to plaintiff at his home and at his place of business. At the latter plaintiff failed to pay his bills. The parties agreed in writing to transfer the business account (which had been discontinued) to the residential account and plaintiff agreed to pay the same in installments. He defaulted in making the payments and defendant gave the statutory notice (Transportation Corporations Law, § 15) that service would be discontinued. On these facts plaintiff sought, and Special Term granted, an injunction against discontinuance of the service. The injunctive relief granted is contrary to law. From very early times it has been held that a company supplying gas and electric service may refuse to continue to supply a customer who is indebted to it even though the indebtedness is for service supplied to an address other than the one at which the customer is then receiving service (People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas Light Co., 45 Barb. 136; Clark v. Utica Gas & Elec. Co., 224 App. Div. 448). It makes no difference that the current service is to a residence and the indebtedness arose in a business property (Sulkin v. Brooklyn Edison Co., 145 Misc. 484, affd. 237 App. Div. 850). Upon the stipulation of the parties herein, dated June 3, 1966, the appeal taken by defendant-appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 12,1966, denying defendant’s motion for reargument, is withdrawn, without costs to either party. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ. [49 Misc 2d 204.]

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

Order, entered on December 16, 1965, granting plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the preliminary injunction vacated, and plaintiff’s application denied. Defendant supplied gas and electricity to plaintiff at his home and at his place of business. At the latter plaintiff failed to pay his bills. The parties agreed in writing to transfer the business account (which had been discontinued) to the residential account and plaintiff agreed to pay the same in installments. He defaulted in making the payments and defendant gave the statutory notice (Transportation Corporations Law, § 15) that service would be discontinued. On these facts plaintiff sought, and Special Term granted, an injunction against discontinuance of the service. The injunctive relief granted is contrary to law. From very early times it has been held that a company supplying gas and electric service may refuse to continue to supply a customer who is indebted to it even though the indebtedness is for service supplied to an address other than the one at which the customer is then receiving service (People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas Light Co., 45 Barb. 136; Clark v. Utica Gas & Elec. Co., 224 App. Div. 448). It makes no difference that the current service is to a residence and the indebtedness arose in a business property (Sulkin v. Brooklyn Edison Co., 145 Misc. 484, affd. 237 App. Div. 850). Upon the stipulation of the parties herein, dated June 3, 1966, the appeal taken by defendant-appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 12,1966, denying defendant’s motion for reargument, is withdrawn, without costs to either party. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ. [49 Misc 2d 204.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 535, 271 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dworman-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack