In Re the Public Service Commission for the First District

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Public Service Commission for the First District

108 N.E. 94, 214 N.Y. 46, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1212

DecidedJanuary 26, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.E. 94 (In Re the Public Service Commission for the First District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Public Service Commission for the First District, 108 N.E. 94, 214 N.Y. 46, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1212 (N.Y. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not find it necessary for the disposition of this appeal to determine whether the pub- *48 lie service commission, by force of its right to regulate stations and terminal facilities (Public Service Commissions Law, Cons. Laws, ch. 48, section 50), has in any case the power to compel a railroad corporation to maintain a parcel room. We do not mean to intimate a belief that the power exists, but we think the determination whether it does or does' not exist should be left to some case where the rights of the railroad company are directly involved. We are satisfied that, in any event, the witness Mendel could not properly be required to disclose to the commission the financial condition of his company. That company was not subject to the supervision of the commission. It was under no duty to reveal its profits through the testimony of its officer. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 19.) It was under, no duty to submit to a general inspection of its books. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 45, subd. 3.) It kept a parcel room in the railroad station. It kept in the same station a candy store and booth. The commission had no greater control over the one business than over the other. Its power to investigate the profits yielded by the parcel room was no greater than it would have been if the same business had been conducted in an adjoining building. The accident of location did not impose upon the owner the duty to make public disclosure of the profits of a private venture.

The order should.be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We do not find it necessary for the disposition of this appeal to determine whether the pub- *48 lie service commission, by force of its right to regulate stations and terminal facilities (Public Service Commissions Law, Cons. Laws, ch. 48, section 50), has in any case the power to compel a railroad corporation to maintain a parcel room. We do not mean to intimate a belief that the power exists, but we think the determination whether it does or does' not exist should be left to some case where the rights of the railroad company are directly involved. We are satisfied that, in any event, the witness Mendel could not properly be required to disclose to the commission the financial condition of his company. That company was not subject to the supervision of the commission. It was under no duty to reveal its profits through the testimony of its officer. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 19.) It was under, no duty to submit to a general inspection of its books. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 45, subd. 3.) It kept a parcel room in the railroad station. It kept in the same station a candy store and booth. The commission had no greater control over the one business than over the other. Its power to investigate the profits yielded by the parcel room was no greater than it would have been if the same business had been conducted in an adjoining building. The accident of location did not impose upon the owner the duty to make public disclosure of the profits of a private venture.

The order should.be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.E. 94, 214 N.Y. 46, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-public-service-commission-for-the-first-district-ny-1915.