
    People of the State of New York ex rel. John P. O’Brien and William H. Ellis, as Receivers of the New York and Westchester Water Company, Respondents, v. James P. Keating, as Commissioner of the Department of Highways of the City of New York, Defendant. Henry C. Henderson, Appellant.
    
      Paarty—right of an occupant of land to he made a party to a proceeding hy a water company to enfoi’ce the right to disconnect a service pipe.
    
    Where the receivers of a water company institute a proceeding to compel the commissioner of the department of highways of the city of New York to issue a permit authorizing them to open a street in that city for the purpose of disconnecting a service pipe which supplied the house of a delinquent customer, the court may, in its discretion, refuse tó allow a person, who claims to be. the occupant of the premises, to intervene as a party defendant.
    
    Appeal by Henry C. Henderson from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 1st day of May, 1900, denying his application to intervene in this proceeding as a party defendant.
    This proceeding was instituted by the relators to Compel the commissioner of the department of highways of the city of New York to issue a permit to the relators authorizing them to open a street in the city of New York for the purpose of disconnecting a service pipe which supplied the house of one of their customers with water, upon the ground that such customer has refused to pay for the same.
    The appellant, Henry 0. Henderson, claims that the delinquent customer had vacated the premises and that he is now the occupant.
    
      H. C. Henderson, for the appellant.
    
      Henry H. Pierce, for the respondents.
    
      
       See People etc rel. O'Brien v. Keating (post, p. 555.)
    
   Per Curiam :

The order denying the application of Henry C. Henderson to intervene as a party defendant in this proceeding was properly made. "Without passing upon the question of the power of the court to permit a party to intervene in such a proceeding as this, we think its discretion was properly exercised in this case. Hr. Henderson, as the present occupant of the premises, if he is entitled to be supplied with water by the relators, has a complete remedy to which he may resort, and this proceeding, which is one exclusively between the relators and a city official respecting a duty of the latter under a particular state of facts, can in no way affect or impair Hr. Henderson’s right either at law or in equity.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, Ingraham: and Hatch, JJ".

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  