Legal Opinion

Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle

Rochester City Court

Decided September 9, 1998PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Melchor E. Castro, J.

In this small claims action, plaintiff asserts a cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227 [c] [5]). The evidence showed that on December 27, 1997 and April 11, 1998, plaintiff received telephone solicitations from defendant’s telemarketing department, despite the fact that, within the preceding 12 months, he had requested that his *645name be placed on the defendant’s do-not-call list. Plaintiff also alleges that, despite his numerous requests, defendant failed to supply him with a copy of its do-not-call policy.

The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. International Science & Technology Institute, Incorporated v. Inacom Communications, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kaplan v. Democrat & ChronicleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API