Infarinato v. Rochester Tel. Corp.

Full title: RICHARD INFARINATO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, v. ROCHESTER TELEPHONE…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 26, 2019

2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 3222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

541 CA 18-01736

04-26-2019

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.

CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

PRESENT:

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