Philadelphia Corp. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Cardona, P. J.
Plaintiffs are the owners of hydroelectric generating facilities which sell their electricity to defendant, a public utility, pursuant to contract and the requirements of the Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (16 USC § 824a-3) and Public Service Law § 66-c. At issue are 20 output contracts, 17 *178of which define the electricity to be sold in terms of approximate capacity and approximate annual production.1
In 1992, defendant sought to clarify the maximum amount of electricity it was bound to purchase under the contracts and informed plaintiffs of its…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. WesolowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Wigand v. . Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fulton Cogeneration Associates v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Canusa Corp. v. a & R LOBOSCO, INC.District Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- New York State Dam Ltd. Partnership v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- O'Shanter Resources, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1996
- Balaber-Strauss v. New York Telephone (In Re Coin Phones, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.