Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Lindsay, 24 N.Y.2d 309 (1969)
A utility company must relocate its facilities at its own expense when a municipality condemns land for a governmental function, such as urban renewal or building a public school, unless the legislature expressly directs otherwise.
Summary
Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) sought compensation from New York City for the costs of relocating its pipes and mains after the city condemned land for an urban renewal project and a public school. The Court of Appeals held that Con Ed was not entitled to compensation. The court reasoned that the common-law rule requires utility companies to relocate their facilities at their own expense when necessitated by governmental functions. The court distinguished this case from situations where the city acts in a proprietary capacity, reaffirming that slum clearance and school construction are governmental functions.
Facts
New York City condemned land in lower Manhattan for the Brooklyn Bridge Southwest Urban Renewal Plan and another parcel in the Bronx to build Public School 161. These condemnations required Con Ed to remove and relocate its subsurface infrastructure (pipes, mains, conduits) from the affected streets. The city did not offer compensation to Con Ed for these relocation expenses, citing the common-law rule that utilities bear the cost of relocating facilities in public rights-of-way when required for public projects.
Procedural History
In the urban renewal case (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Lindsay), Con Ed initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the city to compensate it for relocation costs; Special Term granted Con Ed’s petition, which the Appellate Division affirmed. In the school construction case (Matter of City of New York [Public School 161]), the city sought an order compelling Con Ed to relocate its facilities at its own expense, which Special Term granted; the Appellate Division reversed. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals and were consolidated for review.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a utility company is entitled to compensation from a municipality when the municipality condemns land for a governmental function, thereby requiring the utility to relocate its facilities.
Holding
1. No, because the common-law rule dictates that utility companies must bear the cost of relocating their facilities when required by governmental functions, such as urban renewal and school construction, unless the legislature expressly directs otherwise.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the common-law rule, stating, “utility companies, which have been granted the ‘privilege’ of laying their pipes and mains in the public streets…must relocate them at their own expense ‘whenever the public health, safety or convenience requires the change to be made.’” The Court emphasized that departures from this rule are recognized “only ‘when the change is required in behalf of other public service corporations or in behalf of municipalities exercising a proprietary instead of a governmental function.’” The court determined that urban renewal and the construction of public schools constitute governmental functions. Distinguishing Matter of City of New York (Gillen Place), 304 N.Y. 215, the court clarified that Gillen Place applied only when the city acted in a proprietary capacity. The court noted that the city was not attempting to appropriate Con Ed’s pipes for its own use, but simply compelling relocation. The court stated that statutory definitions of “real property” do not override the common-law rule. “The burden and expense traditionally imposed on the public utility to remove and relocate its property may not be transferred to the taxpayer absent ‘express direction of the Legislature.’”