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.
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.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.