In the Matter of Rochester Telephone Corporation et al., Petitioners,
v.
Public Service Commission of the State of New York et al., Respondents
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 30, 1994
June 30, 1994
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester (Michael T. Tomaino and Terrance P. O'Grady of counsel), and Michael J. Shortley, III, Rochester (Helen A. Zamboni of counsel), for Rochester Telephone Corporation, petitioner.
Cullen & Dykman, Brooklyn (Steven L. Zelkowitz, Peter M. Metzger and Jacqueline I. Hardy of counsel), Edwin W. Scott, New York City (Marc Richter of counsel), and Victor A. Roque, Pearl River (John L. Carley of counsel), for Brooklyn Union Gas Company and others, petitioners.
Matthew J. Picardi, Syracuse (Thomas J. O'Neill of counsel), and Gould & Wilkie, New York City (Peter V.K. Funk, Jr., and Eric O. Costello of counsel), for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, petitioner.
Huber, Lawrence & Abell, New York City (Alfred L. Nardelli and Gregory J. Blasi of counsel), for New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and others, petitioners.
John M. Clarke, New York City (Jerome M. Balsam, Patrick A. Lee and Cornelia McDougald; and Guy Miller Struve, New York City [Davis, Polk & Wardwell], of counsel), for New York Telephone Company, petitioner.
Ronald J. Tanski, Buffalo, for National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, petitioner.
William J. Cowan, Albany (Lawrence G. Malone of counsel), for Public Service Commission, respondent.
Joel Blau, Albany, for New York State Consumer Protection Board, respondent.
MERCURE, J. P., WHITE, WEISS and PETERS, JJ., concur.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.
CASEY, J.
Concerned about the need for an adjustment to a utility's rates to reflect the uncompensated use of certain intangible utility assets by the utility's unregulated affiliates and to offset certain costs imposed on the utility by its affiliates that could not be readily or directly quantified, respondent Public Service Commission (hereinafter the PSC) ordered a separate proceeding to consider the propriety...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
