Gordohn v. Yonkers Electric Light & Power Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordohn v. Yonkers Electric Light & Power Co.

275 A.D.2d 837

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

DecidedMay 2, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 837 (Gordohn v. Yonkers Electric Light & Power 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

Gordohn v. Yonkers Electric Light & Power Co., 275 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion was based upon the contention that the determination in favor of plaintiff in a proceeding which had been instituted by him, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, directing defendant to restore the serivee, was res judicata of the issues in the present action. In order to prevail in this action, at least insofar as the cause for penalty is concerned, plaintiff must establish that defendant has refused or neglected to supply electricity to him for a period of ten days. (Transportation Corporations Law, § 12.) That was not an issue in the prior proceeding and no finding to such effect was made. There, the finding that plaintiff offered to pay, six days after current was originally discontinued, an amount greater than was found by the Official Referee to be owing, together with the findings that tampering with or failure to protect and safeguard the meter in plaintiff’s premises had not been proved, was sufficient to support the determination. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 852.]

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

The motion was based upon the contention that the determination in favor of plaintiff in a proceeding which had been instituted by him, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, directing defendant to restore the serivee, was res judicata of the issues in the present action. In order to prevail in this action, at least insofar as the cause for penalty is concerned, plaintiff must establish that defendant has refused or neglected to supply electricity to him for a period of ten days. (Transportation Corporations Law, § 12.) That was not an issue in the prior proceeding and no finding to such effect was made. There, the finding that plaintiff offered to pay, six days after current was originally discontinued, an amount greater than was found by the Official Referee to be owing, together with the findings that tampering with or failure to protect and safeguard the meter in plaintiff’s premises had not been proved, was sufficient to support the determination. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 852.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordohn-v-yonkers-electric-light-power-co-nyappdiv-1949.