From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blair v. Nynex Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 8, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).


Plaintiff purports to represent a class of those persons who have been charged five cents by a pay telephone for additional time on a call, but have paid a greater amount because they did not have the correct change, and because the pay telephones are mechanically unable to provide refunds or to credit the caller with additional time. We agree with the motion court that the primary jurisdiction doctrine warrants deferral to the Public Service Commission, and that the action should be dismissed without prejudice to any action or proceeding plaintiff might institute after exhaustion of administrative remedies ( see, Goodman Co. v. New York Tel. Co., 285 App. Div. 404, 410, affd 309 N.Y. 258, 266-267; International Condominium Corp. v. New York Tel. Co., 46 A.D.2d 719). The record does not indicate that plaintiff has, at this time, exhausted his administrative remedies ( see, 16 NYCRR 12.5, 12.14).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Blair v. Nynex Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Blair v. Nynex Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY BLAIR, Appellant, v. NYNEX CORPORATION, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 365

Citing Cases

Statistical Phone Philly v. Nynex Corp.

Admittedly, it appears that at least one New York court has also confused the concepts, dismissing a case…

Cincotta v. Verizon Commc'n, Inc.

Civil Court should have granted that branch of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. This…