Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1979
• Citation: 98 Misc.2d 944,415 N.Y.S.2d 180
• Parties: Jean LORETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. and Teleprompter Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 180

415 N.Y.S.2d 180

98 Misc.2d 944

Jean LORETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly

situated, Plaintiff, v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. and Teleprompter

Corporation, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

March 14, 1979.

Michael S. Gruen, New York City, for plaintiff.

Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey, New York City, for defendants Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. & Teleprompter Corp.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York City, for defendant City of New York.

LOUIS GROSSMAN, Acting Justice.

Motions # 89, 90, 91 and 94 on the calendar of November 3, 1978 are consolidated for disposition.

The main motion (No. 94) in this class action instituted by plaintiff Jean Loretto, formerly the owner of residential premises located at 303 West 105 th Street (ownership was recently transferred to a corporation wholly owned by plaintiff) seeks to test the constitutionality of section 828 of the Executive Law, which became effective on January 1, 1973. Defendant City of New York and the remaining defendants (Teleprompter) move by separate motions (Nos. 91 and 94) for similar relief.

The challenged statute, essentially, bars landlords from interfering with the installation of cable television facilities upon their property and limits payment for such use of the property to the amount awarded by the Commission on cable television. (The Commission has, to date, made only nominal awards of $1.00 and has effectively ruled that it will continue to make such awards absent a showing by a landlord that greater damages are attributable to the installation of cable TV components.) Also at issue is whether Executive Law, section 828(1)(b) purports to authorize Teleprompter to place equipment on the premises of one landlord to service the tenants of another building farther removed from the source of transmission.

Plaintiff argues that the virtually free installation of cable TV components on private property authorized by the statute amounts to an uncompensated trespass and condemnation of property that constitute a "taking" without due process. It is further urged that the proper measure of compensation is the 5% Of Teleprompter's gross revenues that was customarily paid to landlords before the adoption of the statute.

The motion is granted to the extent of declaring that the statute represents a reasonable and, therefore, justifiable exercise of the police power of the State both with...