You are here: / / DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS...
, ,

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit against former officers of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Plaintiff believed the digital encoder receiver transmitter (ERT) installed at his home by the utility to replace an analog meter emitted cancer-causing radiation. Plaintiff removed the ERT and replaced it with an analog meter. The utility considered the meter dangerous and cut off plaintiff’s electricity. Plaintiff complained to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which supported the utilities’ power cut-off and informed plaintiff of his appeal rights. Plaintiff did not appeal and started the instant civil suit:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court has the discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where an administrative agency also has jurisdiction, and the determination of the issues involved, under a regulatory scheme, depends upon the specialized knowledge and experience of the agency … . Here, the issues concern the particular meter used by Central Hudson, plaintiff’s removal and replacement of same, the safety concerns caused by his actions and the validity of the disconnection of his service. These matters fall under the doctrine and, thus, were appropriate for PSC determination. We also agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the causes of action found in plaintiff’s complaint amount to little more than a rebranding of his PSC claim and were properly dismissed … .

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court’s determination that review of a PSC ruling is limited to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. “Supreme Court, in determining the motion for [summary judgment,] properly considered whether the . . . primary jurisdiction doctrine[] precluded the causes of action propounded by plaintiff[]” … , and that, in order to review the original ruling, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to bring an article 78 proceeding … . [Romine] v Laurito, 2020 NY Slip Op 04432, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

You might also like
Election Poll Worker Not an Employee—Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT.
THE FACT THAT THE LADDER SLID OR SHIFTED AND FELL WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING DISCOVERY BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION RESPONDENT HELD ASSETS OF THE ESTATE PROPERLY DENIED, PETITIONERS DID NOT MEET THEIR INITIAL BURDEN.
Presentation of Evidence of an Uncharged Offense Without Seeking a Ruling on Its Admissibility in Advance Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial
IF A DEBT IS ACCELERATED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR RECOVERY OF THE DEBT IS TRIGGERED; IF THE DEBT IS NOT ACCELERATED, THE INSTALLMENTS DUE WITHIN THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING SUIT ARE RECOVERABLE (THIRD DEPT).
A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SUB-PAR PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT SOUNDS IN CONTRACT LAW, NOT NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO HEARINGS ON HER SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ACTUAL INNOCENCE AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING... ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION...