Opinion
November 19, 1945.
Present — Close, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [ 184 Misc. 564.] [See post, p. 1050.]
Action for a declaratory judgment that the defendants are not entitled to the "public building" rate for electric energy furnished to a housing project in Staten Island and for a money judgment for the difference between the "public building" rate and the "general service" rate. Order denying plaintiff's motion for judgment under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and directing the entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, and the judgment entered pursuant thereto, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The test is whether the purpose of the use is in furtherance of a public benefit. Here that purpose is to safeguard the "entire public from the menace of the slums." ( Matter of N.Y. City H. Authority v. Muller, 270 N.Y. 333, 342.) The effectuation of this purpose being a public benefit under the pertinent statutes and cases, the buildings, owned and operated by the defendants and devoted to its accomplishment, are public buildings.