From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Advanced Refractory Tech. v. Power Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 8, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs, industrial users of replacement power generated by respondent Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) and the City of Niagara Falls, alleged that PASNY breached certain contracts (referred to as the Niagara Contract NS-1, the 1982 Settlement Agreement, and the 1988 Settlement Agreement) by fixing new rates in excess of cost. The first four causes of action should be dismissed insofar as they allege a breach of contract. Although the Niagara Contract NS-1 contains rate schedules, the contract expressly provides that the rate schedules are subject to modification by PASNY. There is no provision in any of the three contracts that restricts the power of PASNY to fix new rates or requires PASNY to sell its power at cost. Any rights plaintiffs may have concerning the rates to be charged are derived from statute and not from contract. The proper remedy to challenge PASNY's act of fixing the rates for power is by way of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 N.Y.2d 695; Matter of Allied Sanitation v Aponte, 142 A.D.2d 511, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 810; Long Is. Coll. Hosp. v Axelrod, 118 A.D.2d 177; International Paper Co. v Sterling Forest Pollution Control Corp., 105 A.D.2d 278). We therefore convert the action to an article 78 proceeding with leave to plaintiffs, industrial users and the City of Niagara Falls, to amend and to serve a petition in place of the complaint within 20 days of the service of the order entered herein. The venue should remain in Niagara County (see, CPLR 505 [a]).

We also dismiss the eighth cause of action for an accounting inasmuch as it is based upon the causes of action for breach of contract.

Further, we dismiss the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action based on promissory estoppel. Absent an unusual factual situation, not present here, estoppel is not available against a governmental agency exercising its governmental function (D'Angelo v Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 65 N.Y.2d 714).

Lastly, we dismiss the first and second causes of action asserted by the individual residential user of power because he has no standing to challenge the rates charged for replacement power reserved for industrial users (see, Matter of Bradford Cent. School Dist. v Ambach, 56 N.Y.2d 158, 164; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9).


Summaries of

Advanced Refractory Tech. v. Power Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Advanced Refractory Tech. v. Power Auth

Case Details

Full title:ADVANCED REFRACTORY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Respondents, v. POWER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Rizzo v. Verizon CCC LLC

With a similar caveat, this action against that Respondent is dismissed. (See Consolidated Edison Company of…