Majority
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Williston Park dated August 6, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, increased the water rate it charged to the petitioner.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
In this proceeding, the petitioner seeks to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Williston Park (hereinafter the Board) which, after a public hearing, amended the Code of the Village of Williston Park (hereinafter the Village Code) to, inter alia, increase the water rate it charged to the petitioner (see Local Law of Village of Wil
The Supreme Court erred in characterizing the proceeding as one in the nature of certiorari in which the “substantial evidence” inquiry applied (CPLR 7804 [g]). Rate-making determinations may be considered “judicial in the sense that they are reviewable by certiorari or a proceeding in the nature of certiorari” where notice and a hearing are prescribed by statute (Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 NY2d 400 , 407 [1969] [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, “there are different types of hearings with different legal consequences” (New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v McBarnette, 84 NY2d 194 , 203 n 2 [1994]). Here, the Village Code required the Board to conduct a hearing in advance of changing the rates it charged for water service, and the Board held a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing (see Code of Village of Williston Park § 225-20 [A]). As such, judicial review of the determination was limited to “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” (Matter of Tuccio v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn., 67 AD3d 689 , 692 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v McBarnette, 84 NY2d at 203 n 2; Matter of Reagans Mill Sewer Co., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Dover, 23 AD3d 563 [2005]). Accordingly, the matter should have been heard and determined by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of Holcomb v Williams, 72 AD3d 687 , 687-688 [2010]; Seaview Assn. of Fire Is. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 123 AD2d 619 , 619-620 [1986]; Matter of Pauling v Smith, 46 AD2d 759 , 760 [1974]). Nevertheless, we will decide the case in the interest of judicial economy (see Matter of Holcomb v Williams, 72 AD3d at 688 ; Seaview Assn. of Fire Is. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 123 AD2d at 620 ; Matter of Pauling v Smith, 46 AD2d at 760 ).
The Board’s determination to increase rates was rational, and was not arbitrary and capricious or illegal. A municipal water supplier may charge a higher rate to customers outside its borders, including other municipalities, so long as the difference has a rational basis (see Town Bd. of Town of Poughkeepsie v City of Poughkeepsie, 22 AD2d 270 , 271, 274 [1964]; 1981 Ops St Comp No. 81-330). Moreover, a municipal corporation operating a public water utility is entitled to earn a “fair return” on
The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.
Skelos, J.P, Dillon, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Lakeland Water District v. Onondaga County Water Authority 24 NY2d 400 at 407 p. 680
- New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. McBarnette 84 NY2d 194 at 203 p. 680
- Tuccio v. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission 67 AD3d 689 at 692 p. 680
- Reagans Mill Sewer Co. v. Town Board of Dover 23 AD3d 563 p. 680
- Holcomb v. Williams 72 AD3d 687 at 687-688 p. 680
- Seaview Ass'n of Fire Island v. Department of Environmental Conservation 123 AD2d 619 at 619-620 p. 680
- Town Board v. City of Poughkeepsie 22 AD2d 270 at 271, 274 p. 680
- Heritage Co. v. Village of Massena 192 AD2d 1039 at 1041 p. 681