Opinion
March 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to an October 13, 1988, resolution by the New York City Board of Estimate, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Con Ed) was required to place its utility lines underground in coordination with a certain portion of a capital highway reconstruction project on Northern Boulevard. On this appeal, Con Ed claims, inter alia, that it is entitled to recover the increased cost of having to place its lines underground instead of merely moving its utility poles to accommodate the widening of Northern Boulevard. We disagree.
It is well settled that "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' and that departure from this settled principle is 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'" (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Lindsay, 24 N.Y.2d 309, 316-317 [emphasis in original], quoting Transit Commn. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 253 N.Y. 345, 352; see, New York Tel. Co. v City of New York, 95 A.D.2d 282, affd 65 N.Y.2d 681). What is more, although the resolution requiring the underground placement of Con Ed's lines is based in part on aesthetic concerns, such concerns constitute a "valid basis for the exercise of the police power" (Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Hulse, 43 N.Y.2d 483, 490; cf., Rochester Tel. Corp. v Village of Fairport, 84 A.D.2d 455).
We have considered Con Ed's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.