Case Name: PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1982-04-02
Citations: 184 N.J. Super. 130
Docket Number: 
Parties: PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued December 15, 1981
Decided April 2, 1982.
Before Judges MATTHEWS, PRESSLER and PETRELLA.
Patrick C. English argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Dines & English, attorneys; Patrick C. English on the briefs).
William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Stryker, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Charles H. Friedrich on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lester in his opinion which is reported in 179 N.J.Super. 155.
Absent proof that the process of defendant is akin to a monopoly or constitutes by analogy a public utility, we agree that defendant may assert the conditions here involved when accepting film for processing.