You are here: / / AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW REQUIRES UTILITY COMPANIES TO COMPENSATE...

AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW REQUIRES UTILITY COMPANIES TO COMPENSATE CUSTOMERS FOR STORM-OUTAGE-RELATED LOSSES WHERE THE OUTAGE IS FOR 72 HOURS OR MORE AND PROHIBITS UTILITIES FROM RECOVERING THOSE COSTS FROM RATEPAYERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined that an amendment to the Public Service Law requires utilities to compensate customers for storm-outage-related losses when the outage lasts for 72 hours or more, and prohibits utilities from recovering those costs from ratepayers. The Third Department disagreed with Supreme Court and found this declaratory judgment action was ripe for judicial review, but affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition. The opinion has a comprehensive discussion of statutory interpretation which is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Matter of Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v State of N.Y. Pub. Serv. Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 03849, Third Dept 6-25-25

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AT SENTENCING RAISED THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE REQUIRING FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, ISSUE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S VISITATION PETITION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT).
ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION; THE DENIAL WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED BY SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO INFORM CARRIER OF LAWN CARE WORK WARRANTED RETURN OF BENEFITS PAID, BUT NOT A PERMANENT BAR ON FUTURE BENEFITS.
Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIES TO DEFAMATION ACTIONS WAS NOT APPLICABLE... THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED...