Verizon New York, Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verizon New York, Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc.

55 A.D.3d 378, 865 N.Y.S.2d 213

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 378 (Verizon New York, Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc.) 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

Verizon New York, Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 378, 865 N.Y.S.2d 213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 3, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming that plaintiff would have been required to exhaust its administrative remedies by first bringing its claims regarding payment for telecommunication interconnection charges before the Public Service Commission (see Core Communications, Inc. v Verizon Pa., Inc., 493 F3d 333, 342-343 [2007]), the parties’ agreement waived such requirement. Waiver was not expressly prohibited by statute (see Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 NY2d 450, 455 [1979]; cf. Estro Chem. Co. v Falk, 303 NY 83 [1951]), nor could it have been in view of the implied nature of the claimed exhaustion requirement, and did not violate public policy. The provisions in the parties’ prior interconnection agreement, correctly interpreted by the court (see Adler v Simpson, 203 AD2d 691, 692-693 [1994]; see also Hirsch v Food Resources, Inc., 24 AD3d 293, 295 [2005]) and read together so as to give purpose and meaning to each of them (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]), were effective for such purpose.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Andrias, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 3, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming that plaintiff would have been required to exhaust its administrative remedies by first bringing its claims regarding payment for telecommunication interconnection charges before the Public Service Commission (see Core Communications, Inc. v Verizon Pa., Inc., 493 F3d 333, 342-343 [2007]), the parties’ agreement waived such requirement. Waiver was not expressly prohibited by statute (see Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 NY2d 450, 455 [1979]; cf. Estro Chem. Co. v Falk, 303 NY 83 [1951]), nor could it have been in view of the implied nature of the claimed exhaustion requirement, and did not violate public policy. The provisions in the parties’ prior interconnection agreement, correctly interpreted by the court (see Adler v Simpson, 203 AD2d 691, 692-693 [1994]; see also Hirsch v Food Resources, Inc., 24 AD3d 293, 295 [2005]) and read together so as to give purpose and meaning to each of them (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]), were effective for such purpose.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Andrias, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 378, 865 N.Y.S.2d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verizon-new-york-inc-v-choice-one-communications-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack