In re Gillespie

I dissent from the opinion for reversal in so far as it affects item C allowance. I find no basis in law for the award for the excess cost of maintaining the lines of the substituted route. The city has provided a substitute line and has paid the full cost of relocation. By so doing it has discharged its obligation to the utility company. (Matter of Gilroy, 43 App. Div. 359; affd., 164 N. Y. 576; Matter of City of New York [Croton Falls Dam], 152 App. Div. 730.) The statute requires the city to pay the “ expense, loss or damage by reason of changing such route or relocation.” Giving this…