Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Indus. Comm'r of New York State

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Indus. Comm'r of New York State

313 N.E.2d 787, 34 N.Y.2d 725, 357 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1607

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 313 N.E.2d 787 (Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Indus. Comm'r of New York State) 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

Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Indus. Comm'r of New York State, 313 N.E.2d 787, 34 N.Y.2d 725, 357 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1607 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division remitting the matter to the respondent for a further hearing. We point out, however, that we are persuaded to do so in large measure because petitioner, as a public utility, is not in the status of a competitor with those contractors comprising the sources of respondent’s statistical information that served as a basis for its determination of the prevailing rate of wage to be paid petitioner’s employees. Since we are not dealing with sources of information from petitioner’s “ competitors ”, the concern expressed by respondent regarding the destruction of any confidentiality enjoyed in obtaining the vital information, is unfounded. In short, no undue advantage would be obtained as to any possible future bidding that could occur as between true competitors.

*727 The disclosure by respondent of its sources of information will permit petitioner to inquire into the validity of the data upon which respondent’s determination was based, ih terms of whether the surveyed employees of other employers were seasonal or year-round and whether they actually performed services similar to those of petitioner’s employees.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Stevens concur; Judge Rabin taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs to petitioner, in memorandum.

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

Memorandum. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division remitting the matter to the respondent for a further hearing. We point out, however, that we are persuaded to do so in large measure because petitioner, as a public utility, is not in the status of a competitor with those contractors comprising the sources of respondent’s statistical information that served as a basis for its determination of the prevailing rate of wage to be paid petitioner’s employees. Since we are not dealing with sources of information from petitioner’s “ competitors ”, the concern expressed by respondent regarding the destruction of any confidentiality enjoyed in obtaining the vital information, is unfounded. In short, no undue advantage would be obtained as to any possible future bidding that could occur as between true competitors.

*727 The disclosure by respondent of its sources of information will permit petitioner to inquire into the validity of the data upon which respondent’s determination was based, ih terms of whether the surveyed employees of other employers were seasonal or year-round and whether they actually performed services similar to those of petitioner’s employees.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Stevens concur; Judge Rabin taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs to petitioner, in memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.E.2d 787, 34 N.Y.2d 725, 357 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-long-island-lighting-co-v-indus-commr-of-new-york-state-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack