Legal Opinion
Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosenberg
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 18, 1993PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Smith, J.
The primary issue on this appeal is whether the siting of a cellular telephone facility qualifies as a "public utility” use variance exception under Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman (43 NY2d 598).
Respondent Cellular Telephone Company (Cellular One), formerly known as Metro One, is a telephone corporation (Public Service Law § 2 [17]; Transportation Corporations Law § 25) and a public utility company (Public Service Law § 2 [23]; 1 see also, Village Law § 5-524 [6] [defining public utility services to include telephone services]). Cellular One is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Payne v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Cellular Telephone Co. v. RosenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by51 opinions
- Cellular Telephone Company, Doing Business as at & T Wireless Services v. The Town of Oyster Bay and the Town Board of the Town of Oyster BayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrangeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. WillothCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Lucas v. Planning Bd. of Town of LaGrangeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Cellular Telephone Co. v. Village of TarrytownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.