ferrovino.blogg.se

1. #Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp full#
2. #Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp trial#
3. #Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp license#

Literally, they’re among the class, just as well as commercial property. Well, if you’re going to make that argument, then it applies to private residences. I do know that there is at least one case which was decided in New York City which deals with a commercial rental property on which Manhattan Cable Television had made the installation, not Teleprompter. Gruen:Ĭlearly it would be included in the class. How about just a warehouse or something like that? Michael S.

#Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp license#

I do not know as to non-rental, although I can say that the city license obliges Teleprompter to service hospitals, which would normally be non-rental commercial facilities. I think the question is, are there any owners of commercial… non-rental commercial property included in that class?

#Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp trial#

Not by the giving of notice, but it has been certified by the Supreme Court, that is to say the trial level court in New York, as consisting of all owners of property in the state on which installations have been made, with a minor exception which I don’t think we need to go into here. Well, is that class perfected? Michael S. Your Honor, the designated class is the owners of property in New York State on which Teleprompter has made installations. I suppose at some point there may be some fine tuning on that, but that’s how it stands.īut there was no commercial property issue presented by the record in this case, was there? Michael S. The Court of Appeals referred to rental properties in general. No distinction was made between commercial and residential property, that’s correct. There’s no distinction made between commercial and residential property? Michael S. We have urged throughout this case the observance of a per se or absolute rule– Loretto then brought this action sounding in trespass, and the sole defense remaining after the elimination of a number of defenses by the Court of Appeals is Section 828, and we’re presented therefore with the question of whether there are any extraordinary factors which take this case out of the usual rule that a landlord is entitled to exclusive possession, and particularly to exclusivity with respect to the installation of permanent installations on the property, particularly including television aerials and the like. Gruen:Īccording to the Court of Appeals, there may be no compensation for crossovers under any circumstances.

The crossovers aren’t even subject to that, are they? Michael S. It was their practice, dictated by management, to solicit consent using a printed form which you’ll find in the joint appendix at pages 32 to 33, which provided specifically for compensation at the rate of five percent of gross revenues derived from the building on which the installation was made.Įffective as of January 1, 1973, Executive Law Section 828 was adopted and made effective in New York, prohibiting landlord interference with installations and prohibiting any payments to landlords from cable television companies or from tenants with respect to such installations, with the exception of purely discretionary compensation which could be made by the cable television commission with respect to installations servicing the tenants on the property on which the installation was made, and then only if application was made for it within a very short period after the installation had been made, some, I believe, 180 days if I remember correctly.

#Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp full#

This constitutional right existed in its full sanctity in New York prior to 1973.Īt that time Teleprompter and other cable television companies made a practice of seeking owner consent before installing cable television lines and the necessary accompanying equipment. Not so subordinate that you can’t prevail. It’s not so subordinate that you can’t prevail, is that it? Michael S. In that statement are you conceding it’s a subordinate right? That constitutional right existed in its full sanctity–Īre you conceding that? Michael S.

I’m here to argue for the preservation of one of our subordinate constitutional rights, namely the preservation of property. Gruen, I think you may proceed whenever you’re ready. We will hear arguments next in Loretto against Teleprompter Manhattan. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation Warren E. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – Main Loretto v.