Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

MMCM Corp. v. Con Edison

MMCM Corp. v. Con Edison
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 25, 2000
186 Misc. 2d 437; 721 N.Y.S.2d 436

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Richard, W. Babinecz, New York City (Helman R. Brook of counsel), for appellant. MMCM Corp., respondent pro se. Malena Auto Glass Corp., respondent pro se.

MMCM Corp. v. Con Edison

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgments entered October 18, 1999 reversed, without costs, and actions dismissed.

*438Liability was improperly imposed below, since it was not shown that the interruption of plaintiffs’ electrical service resulted from defendant Con Edison’s “gross negligence or willful misconduct” as required by the defendant’s filed tariff (see, Lockwood v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 112 AD2d 495; Lee v Consolidated Edison Co., 98 Misc 2d 304). Moreover, there is no competent proof in the record to support the awards of damages. Since plaintiffs cannot prevail “according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (CCA 1807), the small claims actions must be dismissed.

McCooe, J. P., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.