Gamewell Co. v. Public Service Commission of State of N.Y.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | GIBSON |
| Citation | 188 N.Y.S.2d 107,8 A.D.2d 232 |
| Parties | , 29 P.U.R.3d 539 Application of the GAMEWELL COMPANY, Petitioner, for Orders Pursuant to the Provision of Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Act, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, and NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1959 |
Page 107
Pursuant to the Provision of Article 78 of the New
York Civil Practice Act,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
and NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent.
Page 108
[8 A.D.2d 233] Whalen, McNamee, Creble & Nichols, Albany (Jerome Preston, Jr., Boston, Mass., Frank A. McNamee, Albany, and Lawrence A. Sullivan, Boston, Mass., of counsel), for petitioner.Kent H. Brown, Albany (George H. Kenny and Charles R. Gibson, Albany, of counsel), for respondent Public Service Commission.
G. Wallace Bates, Eric B. Nelson, New York City, and Henry J. Friendly, New York City (Edward L. Friedman, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondent New York Telephone Company.
Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, GIBSON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
GIBSON, Justice.
This article 78 proceeding presents the question whether the Public Service Commission was correct in determining that respondent telephone company's business of furnishing systems for reporting of emergency alarms is properly subject to regulation.
On November 1, 1956, the telephone company filed with the Public Service Commission a tariff entitled 'Private Branch Exchange Service--F. Telephone Switchboard System for Voice Reporting of Fire, Police and Other Emergency Alarms'. The system is offered for use only to municipalities and other governmental agencies. Petitioner, a business corporation manufacturing emergency alarm reporting equipment for sale or lease to its customers, protested the acceptance of the filing by a letter, treated by the commission as a complaint which it then proceeded to hear. Thus there exists the situation of a utility seeking to be regulated in a debatable area and of a company, not itself subject to regulation, protesting the imposition[8 A.D.2d 234] of that restraint upon its competitor. Despite occasional and somewhat ingenuous disclaimer, the explanation is doubtless to be found in the provisions of a consent decree in an antitrust case which, in general, enjoins American Telephone & Telegraph Company, and its subsidiaries (of which the respondent company is one) from engaging 'in any business other than the furnishing of common carrier communications services'; that term including 'any communications service or facility, other than message telegram service, the charges for which are or become subject to regulation under existing or future laws of any state'. (Final Judgment, United States of America v. Western Elec. Co. et al.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Tel. Co. of Upstate New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
...v. Public Serv. Comm., 5 N.Y.2d 485, 186 N.Y.S.2d 47, 158 N.E.2d 714; Matter of Gamewell Co. v. Public Serv. Comm. of State of N. Y., 8 A.D.2d 232, 188 N.Y.S.2d 107 mot. for lv. to app. den. 7 N.Y.2d 706, 193 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 162 N.E.2d 754; Matter of Solomon v. Public Service Comm., 286 App.......
-
Ceracche Television Corp. v. Public Service Commission
...by the company in the business of telephone communication. (Matter of Gamewell Co. v. Public Service Commission of State of N. Y., 8 A.D.2d 232, 188 N.Y.S.2d 107, leave to appeal denied 7 N.Y.2d 706, 193 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 162 N.E.2d 754). Such a non-utility activity of a telephone company is n......
-
Radio Common Carriers of New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission
...of Mounting and Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N.Y. 104, 108, 60 N.E.2d 825, 827; Page 556 Mtr. of Gamewell Co. v. Public Serv. Comm., 8 A.D.2d 232, 235, 188 N.Y.S.2d 107, 109). Telephony is the art of communication and is so invested with public concern that the Legislature has seen fit ......
-
Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc. v. Dunkin Donuts, Inc.
...general area and in the same business certainly creates a probability of deception without having to decide who has, if anyone, a property[8 A.D.2d 232] right to the name. The answer and the reply affidavits of the appellants in no way refute the charges of deceit and intent to mislead. The......