A New York court has ruled in favor of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, doing business as National Grid, in a property dispute involving Mid River Marina, Inc. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued its decision on July 24, 2026, confirming National Grid's authority to condemn certain property rights for safety improvements. This ruling affects the marina's operations along the Niagara River, where safety concerns have been raised regarding the proximity of its facilities to electrical infrastructure.
The case, docket number 455 OP 25-01823, centers on the ongoing conflict between Mid River Marina and National Grid. The marina, located in Erie County, operates on property partially surrounded by land owned by National Grid, which is essential for its electric service facilities. The court's ruling is significant as it validates National Grid's efforts to enhance safety measures while maintaining public utility services.
Mid River Marina has operated under a longstanding easement, allowing it to use portions of National Grid's property for access and operations. However, this easement comes with strict conditions, including limits on the size of vehicles allowed on the easement and requirements to avoid interference with National Grid's electric transmission lines. Tensions escalated in May 2022 when a National Grid employee confronted the marina's principal about unsafe practices. Tragically, shortly after this confrontation, the principal was fatally electrocuted while operating a boat lift near the distribution line.
Following this incident, National Grid documented further unsafe practices at the marina and sought to acquire property rights through eminent domain to install an underground cable and raise another distribution line. The condemnation process included a public hearing, after which National Grid determined that the project would serve a public benefit. Mid River Marina contested this determination, claiming it would not serve a public use and that the condemnation was excessive.
The Appellate Division, comprising Judges Curran, Bannister, Montour, and Hannah, reviewed the case and ultimately upheld National Grid's determination. The court ruled that the condemnation serves a public benefit by enhancing safety for the public and ensuring the reliability of National Grid's electric service. The ruling stated, "the condemnation serves the public benefit or purpose of increasing the safety of members of the public, employees, and patrons who access the area."
The court emphasized that National Grid has the authority to acquire property necessary for its corporate purposes, which includes ensuring safe and efficient electrical power transmission. The court also noted that the public benefit derived from the condemnation was not diminished by any incidental private gain for National Grid. The ruling highlighted that the proposed project would improve safety at the marina while preserving the marina's right of access.
This ruling has significant implications for both Mid River Marina and National Grid. It confirms the power of utility companies to utilize eminent domain for projects that enhance public safety and infrastructure. The decision also reinforces the legal framework surrounding property rights and the authority of utility companies in New York.
Moving forward, the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases where utility companies seek to acquire property for safety improvements. It clarifies the standards for determining whether a condemnation serves a public use and the extent of authority that utility companies possess under the law. The court's decision may influence how other utility companies approach property acquisitions in the future.
As for Mid River Marina, the ruling means it must comply with the terms of the condemnation and adapt its operations accordingly. The marina's management will need to work with National Grid to ensure that safety protocols are followed while continuing to operate its business.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Mid River Marina plans to appeal the decision. However, the ruling underscores the challenges faced by businesses operating near critical infrastructure and the legal complexities involved in property disputes with utility companies. The case serves as a reminder of the balance between private property rights and the public interest in maintaining safe and reliable utility services.