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
Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline
Immunity for Land Owners Allowing Use of Land by Snowmobilers
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Negligent Highway Design Explained—Qualified Immunity Is Part of the Analysis of Liability
THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY PROPERLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN HERBICIDE IN LAKE GEORGE TO CONTROL AN INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT (THIRD DEPT).
New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent Statements” Jury Charge; Prior Injuries to Child Admissible under Molineux
DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT IF HE FAILED TO PAY RESTITUTION HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED; ENHANCED SENTENCE VACATED AND AGREED-UPON SENTENCE IMPOSED (THIRD DEPT).
IN COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS BINDING DESPITE AGREEMENT TO FINALIZE IT IN WRITING (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 © 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...