Ten Ten Lincoln Place, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ten Ten Lincoln Place, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co.

273 A.D. 903, 77 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 903 (Ten Ten Lincoln Place, Inc. 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

Ten Ten Lincoln Place, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 273 A.D. 903, 77 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for judgment declaring that defendant’s service classifications in its filed tariff schedule or rate schedule are discriminatory, violative of the Public Service Law, the common law and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York, judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the issues presented must he passed upon by the Public Service Commission in the first instance and not by the courts. (Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co., 277 N. Y. 180; Purcell v. New York Central R. R. Co., 268 N. Y. 164; Murray v. New York Telephone Co., 170 App. Div. 17, affd. 226 N. Y. 590; United States Light & Heat Corp. v. Niagara Falls G. & E. L. Co., 47 F. 2d 567; People ex rel. Pub. Service Comm. v. New York Telephone Co., 262 App. Div. 440, affd. 287 N. Y. 803; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Puritan Goal Min. Co., 237 U. S. 121, 131.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [190 Mise. 174.] [See post, p. 973.]

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

In an action for judgment declaring that defendant’s service classifications in its filed tariff schedule or rate schedule are discriminatory, violative of the Public Service Law, the common law and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York, judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the issues presented must he passed upon by the Public Service Commission in the first instance and not by the courts. (Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co., 277 N. Y. 180; Purcell v. New York Central R. R. Co., 268 N. Y. 164; Murray v. New York Telephone Co., 170 App. Div. 17, affd. 226 N. Y. 590; United States Light & Heat Corp. v. Niagara Falls G. & E. L. Co., 47 F. 2d 567; People ex rel. Pub. Service Comm. v. New York Telephone Co., 262 App. Div. 440, affd. 287 N. Y. 803; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Puritan Goal Min. Co., 237 U. S. 121, 131.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [190 Mise. 174.] [See post, p. 973.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 903, 77 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ten-ten-lincoln-place-inc-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack