Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHOICE ONE COMMUNICATIONS OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 3, 2008, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Assuming that plaintiff would have been required to exhaust its administrative remedies by first bringing its claims regarding payment for telecommunication interconnection charges before the Public Service Commission (see Core Communications, Inc. v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 493 F.3d 333, 342-343 [2007] ), the parties' agreement waived such requirement. Waiver was not expressly prohibited by statute (see Matter of Abramovich v. Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 N.Y.2d 450, 455, 414 N.Y.S.2d 109, 386 N.E.2d 1077 [1979]; cf. Estro Chem. Co. v. Falk, 303 N.Y. 83, 100 N.E.2d 146 [1951] ), nor could it have been in view of the implied nature of the claimed exhaustion requirement, and did not violate public policy. The provisions in the parties' prior interconnection agreement, correctly interpreted by the court (see Adler v. Simpson, 203 A.D.2d 691, 692-693, 610 N.Y.S.2d 351 [1994]; see also Hirsch v. Food Resources, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 293, 295, 808 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2005] ) and read together so as to give purpose and meaning to each of them (see Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer, 8 N.Y.3d 318, 324, 834 N.Y.S.2d 44, 865 N.E.2d 1210 [2007] ), were effective for such purpose.
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 16, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)