Clarity Connect, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

15 A.D.3d 767, 788 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1443
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 767 (Clarity Connect, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clarity Connect, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.D.3d 767, 788 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered June 16, 2004 in Tompkins County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, an Internet service provider, commenced this declaratory judgment action in October 2003 seeking, insofar as relevant to this appeal, a determination as to the balance it owed defendants on an account created to provide plaintiff with telephone access to the Internet. Shortly thereafter, defendants instituted an action for a money judgment against plaintiff, seeking payment for outstanding balances allegedly owed on the account. Supreme Court granted defendants’ subsequent motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, finding that defendants’ companion action afforded plaintiff a full opportunity to litigate its claims. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

The decision to entertain an action for declaratory judgment is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Supreme Court, which may decline to consider such relief where other adequate remedies are available (see CPLR 3001; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 148 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]). Inasmuch as defendants’ action for a money judgment, in which plaintiff has answered and counterclaimed, will permit a full resolution of plaintiffs rights and obligations under its account with defendants, including its demand for certain credits [768]*768and offsets, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs action seeking only declaratory relief as to those same issues would be of little, if any, utility or necessity. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs action.

Cardona, EJ., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wolf v. Mony Life Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 50534(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v. New York State Liquor Authority
47 Misc. 3d 256 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Capital District Enterprises, LLC v. Windsor Development of Albany, Inc.
53 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gable Transport, Inc. v. State
29 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Jacobs v. Smith Boys Marine Sales, Inc.
23 A.D.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.3d 767, 788 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarity-connect-inc-v-att-corp-nyappdiv-2005.