Infarinato v Rochester Tel. Corp.

Annotate this Case
Infarinato v Rochester Tel. Corp. 2019 NY Slip Op 03222 Decided on April 26, 2019 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 26, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
541 CA 18-01736

[*1]RICHARD INFARINATO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

v

ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.



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

THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (CRAIG D. PETERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.



Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered February 8, 2018. The order, among other things, denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment and denied the cross motion of defendant Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., as successor in interest to Rochester Telephone Corporation, for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 26, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.