Legal Opinion

Oncor Communications v. State of New York

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

Decided January 11, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Mercure, J.

For each telephone line, the telephone service subscriber is entitled to designate the primary interexchange carrier (hereinafter PIC), i.e., the long distance carrier to whom a call is routed when the user dials "1” or accesses the operator service by dialing "0”. Absent a subscriber’s express written prohibition, local telephone companies are permitted to change the PIC for a particular telephone line on the unverified notification of the purported newly designated PIC, thereby providing fertile ground for the practice of unauthorized substitution, known as…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Flanagan v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Bruss Co. v. Allnet Communication Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
  4. American Inmate Phone Systems, Inc. v. US Sprint Communications Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
  5. Congregation B'Nai Jonah v. KurianskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Attorney GeneralAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  2. Kephart v. BurkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  3. People v. LommaNew York Supreme Court · 2012
  4. M&T Bank Corp. v. Moody's Invs. Servs., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API