Such an attempt to obstruct interstate commerce under guise of an assertion of exercise of the police power must fail. Cf. Long Island Lighting Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, Sup., 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affirmed 298 N.Y. 569, 81 N.E.2d 104, wherein the court held that the village had no right by its zoning ordinance to prohibit maintenance of power lines within it by a lighting company which was vested with powers and rights granted to electric corporations by the Transportation Corporations Law, McK.Consol. Laws, c. 63. Hence I find as

304 N.Y. 932), if it does not materially affect the distribution of electricity in a municipality but, where it does, then a substation can be placed in a use district not in conformity with the local ordinance ( Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. City of Long Beach, 305 N.Y. 880). In Long Is. Light. Co. v. Old Brookville (72 N.Y.S.2d 718, 719, affd. 273 App. Div. 856, affd. 298 N.Y. 569), the village was not allowed to prevent "the construction of these lines, claiming that the towers and lines are commercial structures, the erection and maintenance of which is, by the terms of the Village zoning ordinance, prohibited in residential areas of which the Village largely consists." The Special Term opinion, from which that quotation is taken, cited Jewish Consumptives' Relief Soc. v. Town of Woodbury ( 230 App. Div. 228, affd. 256 N.Y. 619), which upheld the power of a State department over the zoning regulations and board of a municipality, which would have prohibited the location of a tuberculosis sanitorium.

w/o op. 273 App. Div. 856, motion for reargument denied 273 App. Div. 910, aff'd. w/o op. 298 N.Y. 569 (1947), dealt with a franchise to furnish electric current issued by a town in which, subsequent to the granting of the franchise, a village was incorporated which included area in which the franchise holder was already furnishing electric current. The Court held that the village had no right by zoning ordinance to prohibit the maintenance of power lines within the village.

The power of the municipality to enact a zoning ordinance must yield to the superior force of the State statutes which impose upon the public utility company the duty of rendering safe and adequate service. "The general grant of power to a municipality to adopt zoning laws in the interest of public welfare does not have the effect of permitting the local legislative body to override such State law and policy * * * (See Long Island Lighting Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affd. 273 App. Div. 856, affd. 298 N.Y. 569; Matter of Municipal Gas Co. of City of Albany v. Nolan [ 121 Misc. 606, affd. 208 App. Div. 753]; Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Griffin, 272 App. Div. 551, affd. 297 N.Y. 897; Union Free School Dist. No. 14 of Town of Hempstead v. Village of Hewlett Bay Park, 279 App. Div. 618, and Jewish Consumptives' Relief Soc. v. Town of Woodbury, 230 App. Div. 228, affd. 256 N.Y. 619.)" ( Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N Y v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 208 Misc. 295, 300; cf. Matter of Long Is. Lighting Co. v. Village of East Rockaway, 305 N.Y. 738, supra; see, also, 2 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed.], § 255, pp. 151-154).

Those public utilities which are essential to the public health, safety and welfare enjoy a favored position in relation to zoning regulations. ( Matter of Long Is. Water Corp. v. Michaelis, 28 A.D.2d 887; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. Horn, 23 A.D.2d 583; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. City of Long Beach, 280 App. Div. 823, affd. 305 N.Y. 880; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 208 Misc. 295; Long Is. Light. Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affd. 273 App. Div. 856, affd. 298 N.Y. 569; Wallerstein v. Westchester Joint Water Works, 166 Misc. 34; Municipal Gas Co. v. Nolan, 121 Misc. 606, affd. 208 App. Div. 753.

But Professor Anderson also says, at page 313 of his book, that the special exception technique "may be the device best suited to regulate the location of new public utility installations and to insure that the construction of new units and the expansion of existing facilities is accomplished with a minimum of injury to the community plan." In any event it is clear that neither by legislation nor by administrative ruling may a municipality totally bar a public utility installation. ( Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. Griffin, 272 App. Div. 551; Long Is. Light. Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affd. without opn. 273 App. Div.. 856, affd. without opn. 298 N.Y. 569.) Whether the denial here was an effective prohibition of the maintenance of power lines will be later discussed. We come now to the point advanced by the petitioner that a primary jurisdiction has been assumed by the Public Service Commission in relation to the construction of the overhead transmission line and that the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals was precluded from overriding its determination.

( Long Is. Light. Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affd. 273 App. Div. 856, affd. 298 N.Y. 569; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, supra; Long Is. Light. Co. v. Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 158 N.Y.S.2d 878.) "Of course, reasonable local regulation of public utilities is permissible to alleviate as much as possible private damage and annoyance caused by utility installations."

(See Long Island Lighting Co. v. Village of Old Brookville, 72 N.Y.S.2d 718, affd. 273 A.D. 856, affd. 298 N.Y. 569; Matter of Municipal Gas Co. of City of Albany v. Nolan, supra; Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. v. Griffin, 272 A.D. 551, affd. 297 N.Y. 897; Union Free School Dist. No. 14 of Town of Hempstead v. Village of Hewlett Bay Park, 279 A.D. 618, and Jewish Consumptives' Relief Soc. v. Town of Woodbury, 230 A.D. 228, affd. 256 N.Y. 619.)