Infarinato v. Rochester Tel. Corp.

• Decision Date: 02 February 2018
• Docket Number: CA 17–01456,38
• Citation: 67 N.Y.S.3d 884 (Mem)
• Parties: Richard INFARINATO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, and Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Rochester Telephone Corporation, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

158 A.D.3d 1063

67 N.Y.S.3d 884 (Mem)

Richard INFARINATO, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,andFrontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Rochester Telephone Corporation, Defendant–Respondent.

38

CA 17–01456

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: February 2, 2018

CHENEY & BLAIR, LLP, GENEVA (DAVID D. BENZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.

THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (PETER J. GLENNON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Kuhn v. Kuhn, 129 A.D.2d 967, 967, 514 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept. 1987] ; see also CPLR 5701[a][2][iv] ).