City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Sandler, J. P.
Analysis of the issues presented on this appeal necessarily begins with the firmly established principle that, with certain exceptions not here relevant, a public utility such as Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) is required at its own expense to remove or protect and replace its underground facilities whenever the public health, safety or convenience require that to be done. The common-law origin of this obligation was recently noted in Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Lindsay (24 NY2d 309, 316; see also, New York City Tunnel…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Port Chester Electrical Construction Corp. v. AtlasNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v. Interstate Wrecking Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Transit Commission v. Long Island RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- New York City Tunnel Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- MTR. OF CONS. EDISON CO. v. LindsayNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Trocom Construction Corp. v. Consolidated Edison Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- City of New York v. Verizon New York Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2005
- 6-8 Pelham Parkway Corp. v. Rusciano & Son Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Trocom Construction Corp. v. SanderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.