Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle

178 Misc. 2d 644, 679 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 524
Rochester City Court·Decided September 9, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Melchor E. Castro, J.

In this small claims action, plaintiff asserts a cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227 [c] [5]). The evidence showed that on December 27, 1997 and April 11, 1998, plaintiff received telephone solicitations from defendant’s telemarketing department, despite the fact that, within the preceding 12 months, he had requested that his [645] name be placed on the defendant’s do-not-call list. Plaintiff also alleges that, despite his numerous requests, defendant failed to supply him with a copy of its do-not-call policy.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act created a private right of action for residential telephone subscribers who received more than one telephone call within a 12-month period by or on behalf of an entity that failed to honor the subscriber’s request not to receive telephone solicitation calls from the entity. The Act placed exclusive jurisdiction over this cause of action in the State courts (International Science & Technology Inst. v Inacom Communications, 106 F3d 1146).

Footnotes

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

Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle, 178 Misc. 2d 644, 679 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 524 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1998).

178 Misc. 2d 644 (Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle
266 A.D.2d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)