Pandolfo v. U.A. Cable Systems of Watertown
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant filed a complaint charging plaintiff with theft of services. A person is guilty of theft of cable television service when, with intent to avoid payment of the lawful charge for such service, he obtains or attempts to obtain such service or avoids or attempts to avoid payment for such service by "tampering or making connection with the equipment of the supplier” of the service (Penal Law § 165.15 [4] [a]). If tampering has been established, there is a presumption that the person receiving the service has done the tampering with the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Broughton v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Burt v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Boose v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Loeb v. TeitelbaumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Munoz v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Herbert W. Rounseville and Robert Rounseville v. Samuel Zahl, Treva M. Way, and Geoffrey P. SerataCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Hershey v. GoldsteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Fincher v. County of WestchesterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Ramos v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Pritzker v. City of HudsonDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1998
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.