Margolis v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margolis v. New York Telephone Co.

27 A.D.2d 595, 275 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2785

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 595 (Margolis 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

Margolis v. New York Telephone Co., 27 A.D.2d 595, 275 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a judgment and order granting summary judgment. The action was for a judgment declaring the demand for payment of monthly telephone service charges in advance unconstitutional. In the first instance, the reasonableness of a utility’s tariff provision is a question to be determined by the Public Service Commission. On the meager papers presented by the plaintiff there is no showing that the defendant has acted unreasonably or to the prejudice or discrimination of the plaintiff. The requirement of advanced payment of telephone charges has been considered to be a reasonable provision. (See Hare v. New York Tel. Co., 101 Misc. 490, affd. 181 App. Div. 907; Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Danaher, 238 U. S. 482, 490.) Judgment and order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a judgment and order granting summary judgment. The action was for a judgment declaring the demand for payment of monthly telephone service charges in advance unconstitutional. In the first instance, the reasonableness of a utility’s tariff provision is a question to be determined by the Public Service Commission. On the meager papers presented by the plaintiff there is no showing that the defendant has acted unreasonably or to the prejudice or discrimination of the plaintiff. The requirement of advanced payment of telephone charges has been considered to be a reasonable provision. (See Hare v. New York Tel. Co., 101 Misc. 490, affd. 181 App. Div. 907; Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Danaher, 238 U. S. 482, 490.) Judgment and order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 595, 275 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack