O'Flynn v. Village of East Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
I. The admitted disregard by the village officials of the statutory commands with respect to the enactment of village ordinances renders the purported ordinance establishing a municipal electric plant for the Village of East Rochester void and of no effect.
Read the full summary
I. The admitted disregard by the village officials of the statutory commands with respect to the enactment of village ordinances renders the purported ordinance establishing a municipal electric plant for the Village of East Rochester void and of no effect. (Smith v. City of Newburgh, 77 N. Y. 130; In re The Petition of George Douglas, 46 N. Y. 42; City of Glens Falls v. Standard Oil Co., 127 Mise. 104; Matter of Tierney v. Cohen, 268 N. Y. 464; Town of Cort-landt v. Village of PeeksTcill, 281 N. Y. 490; Weeks v. City of Middletown, 107 App. Div. 587; McKuskie v. Hendrickson, 128 N. Y. 555;…
1DissentLewis, J.
My dissent from the decision about to be made has as its basis the fact to which the Appellate Division opinion refers — that “ There is no doubt that the project as passed on by the voters provides for a plant which will be sufficient to generate only power enough to furnish the same to those users in the village, other than Despatch Shops, Inc.” (262 App. Div. 556, 566.) (Emphasis supplied.) The ordinance adopted by the Village of East Rochester to erect a municipal, plant for the generation of electricity for light, heat and power, pledges the faith and credit of the village “ * * * for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Myles Salt Co. v. Board of Comm'rs of Iberia and St. Mary Drainage Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Gaynor v. MarohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Village of East Rochester v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941