Case ID: ny_224/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of Michael Montario, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against New York Telephone Company, Respondent.
    
      Matter of Montario v. N. Y. Telephone Co., 181 App. Div. 893, appeal dismissed.
    (Argued May 29, 1918;
    decided June 14, 1918.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 1, 1917, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to restore telephone service to the petitioner who maintains a barber shop in the borough of Brooklyn and until the 10th day of March, 1917, was a subscriber of the telephone company under its usual form of contract. On that date the police moved the telephone instrument from his premises and arrested one of his employees on the charge of violating section 986 of the Penal Law by receiving and recording bets on horse races. On being notified by .the police that service had been so interrupted, the telephone company canceled its contract with the relator and declined to re-establish the service without notice to and approval of the police department for the reason that the rule and arrangement that the telephone company has with the police department is that whenever a subscriber’s telephone service is interrupted by the police, the telephone company is notified by the police department and thereupon the contract with the subscriber whose service has been interrupted by the police is canceled by the telephone company and such telephone service is not re-established thereafter until the police department has been notified and has approved of such re-establishment of service. The police department refused to approve the re-establishment of relator’s service and directed the company not to restore it. Thereupon this proceeding was commenced.
    
      Charles Goldzier and Julian V. Gamble for appellant.
    
      
      Alexander Cameron and Charles T. Bussell for respondent.
    
      William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley of counsel), for police commissioner of city of New York, intervening:
   Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Hogan, ■ J. Not sitting: His cock, Ch. J.