Infarinato v. Rochester Tel. Corp.

2019 NY Slip Op 3222
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 26, 2019
Docket541 CA 18-01736
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3222 (Infarinato v. Rochester Tel. 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
Infarinato v. Rochester Tel. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 3222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Infarinato v Rochester Tel. Corp. (2019 NY Slip Op 03222)
Infarinato v Rochester Tel. Corp.
2019 NY Slip Op 03222
Decided on April 26, 2019
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 26, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

541 CA 18-01736

[*1]RICHARD INFARINATO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

v

ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.


CHENEY & BLAIR, LLP, GENEVA (DAVID D. BENZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (CRAIG D. PETERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.



Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered February 8, 2018. The order, among other things, denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment and denied the cross motion of defendant Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., as successor in interest to Rochester Telephone Corporation, for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 26, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/infarinato-v-rochester-tel-corp-nyappdiv-2019.