Freedom Finance Co. v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freedom Finance Co. v. New York Telephone Co.

29 A.D.2d 545, 285 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2798

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 545 (Freedom Finance Co. v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Freedom Finance Co. v. New York Telephone Co., 29 A.D.2d 545, 285 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin defendant from discontinuing the telephone number of plaintiff, a licensed money lender, which number (GT-8-3633), transposed to letters on the telephone dial, spells GTVEMEE, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 30, 1967, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $30 costs and disbursements, and cross motion granted, with $10 costs. As against defendant, plaintiff had no proprietary and legal right to retain its present number (cf. Matter of Goldman v. New York Tel. Co., 50 Misc 2d 309; Slenderella Systems of Berkeley v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 286 F. 2d 488, 490). Plaintiff’s contentions that, as applied to it, defendant’s pertinent rules, regulations and threatened action are arbitrary, unreasonable and without authority under the pertinent statutes or regulations on file with the Public Service Commission and rest in whole or in part upon its own invalid self-serving rules and regulations, are to be determined in the first instance by the Public Service Commission (Matter of M. R. Glass, Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., 48 Misc 2d 21). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Christ, J. not voting.

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

In an action to enjoin defendant from discontinuing the telephone number of plaintiff, a licensed money lender, which number (GT-8-3633), transposed to letters on the telephone dial, spells GTVEMEE, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 30, 1967, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $30 costs and disbursements, and cross motion granted, with $10 costs. As against defendant, plaintiff had no proprietary and legal right to retain its present number (cf. Matter of Goldman v. New York Tel. Co., 50 Misc 2d 309; Slenderella Systems of Berkeley v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 286 F. 2d 488, 490). Plaintiff’s contentions that, as applied to it, defendant’s pertinent rules, regulations and threatened action are arbitrary, unreasonable and without authority under the pertinent statutes or regulations on file with the Public Service Commission and rest in whole or in part upon its own invalid self-serving rules and regulations, are to be determined in the first instance by the Public Service Commission (Matter of M. R. Glass, Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., 48 Misc 2d 21). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Christ, J. not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 545, 285 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedom-finance-co-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack