Power Authority v. Fadel

New York Court of Appeals

Power Authority v. Fadel

277 N.E.2d 407, 29 N.Y.2d 790, 327 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 994

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 N.E.2d 407 (Power Authority v. Fadel) 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

Power Authority v. Fadel, 277 N.E.2d 407, 29 N.Y.2d 790, 327 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 994 (N.Y. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: We find nothing in plaintiff’s license or in the treaty and the legislative and administrative action and procedures underlying it, and certainly no clear authorization there or elsewhere, supportive of plaintiff’s contention that the right to exercise the dominant servitude, in favor of the United States, in respect of defendants’ water rights, devolved upon it, so as to exempt it from payment of compensation for their taking. (Federal Power Comm. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U. S. 239, 249; Henry Ford & Son v. Little Falls Fibre Co., 280 U. S. 369; Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. City of Seattle, 382 F. 2d 666.) Our conclusion in this regard renders academic the other issues tendered by the appeal.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: We find nothing in plaintiff’s license or in the treaty and the legislative and administrative action and procedures underlying it, and certainly no clear authorization there or elsewhere, supportive of plaintiff’s contention that the right to exercise the dominant servitude, in favor of the United States, in respect of defendants’ water rights, devolved upon it, so as to exempt it from payment of compensation for their taking. (Federal Power Comm. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U. S. 239, 249; Henry Ford & Son v. Little Falls Fibre Co., 280 U. S. 369; Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. City of Seattle, 382 F. 2d 666.) Our conclusion in this regard renders academic the other issues tendered by the appeal.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 N.E.2d 407, 29 N.Y.2d 790, 327 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/power-authority-v-fadel-ny-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack