CAPROTTI v TOWN OF WOODSTOCK - Legal Case Documents


\|

CAPROTTI v TOWN OF WOODSTOCK

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: CAPROTTI, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0147, Municipality, Public Access, Regulation, Channels, Usc, Damages, Cable Television, Immunity, Cable Service, Liability, Defamation, Franchise, Franchising Authorities, Monetary Damages, Cable Operators, Kingston Cablevision, Local Franchising Authorities, Supreme Court, Programmer, Preemption, Rosenblatt, Construction, Franchise Agreement, Defamatory, Plain Meaning Doctrine, Franchising Authority, State Common-law , ContentID: 120251732

Case Documents

1999-11-18

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 125641

11 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 11 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

PUBLIC ACCESS
REGULATION
CHANNELS
USC
DAMAGES
PLAINTIFFS
CABLE TELEVISION
IMMUNITY
DEFENDANTS
CABLE SERVICE
LAW
LIABILITY
DEFAMATION
FRANCHISE
FRANCHISING AUTHORITIES
MONETARY DAMAGES
CABLE OPERATORS
KINGSTON CABLEVISION
LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITIES
SUPREME COURT
PROGRAMMER
PREEMPTION
ROSENBLATT
CONSTRUCTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
DEFAMATORY
PLAIN MEANING DOCTRINE
FRANCHISING AUTHORITY
STATE COMMON-LAW




    94 N.Y.2d 73(1999).
    November 18, 1999

   (99 NY Int. 0147)
   Decided November 18, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   In this common law defamation action, plaintiffs seek compensatory and
   punitive damages against a municipality, alleging that they were
   defamed by an independent programmer on the municipality's public
   access television channel. The issue before us is whether 47 USC
   555a(a) immunizes the municipality from liability for monetary
   damages. Under that section, immunity extends to any claim against a
   municipality "arising from the regulation of cable service." We
   conclude that plaintiffs' claim arises from the regulation of cable
   service, and therefore uphold dismissal of the complaint against the
   municipality.

   Facts and Procedural History

   Defendant Town of Woodstock (the "municipality") granted non-party
   Kingston Cablevision, Inc., a franchise for the construction and
   operation of a cable television system. In the franchise agreement,
   Kingston Cablevision agreed to provide public access capability to the
   municipality. (n.1) The agreement further provided that "(r)ules
   and regulations for use of the public access capability shall be
   promulgated by (themunicipality)."

   In accordance with that provision, the municipality promulgated
   regulations (the "Regulations") and delegated management of the
   channel to defendant Woodstock Public Access Committee (the "WPAC"), a
   body consisting of five people chosen by the municipality's Town
   Board. Among the Regulations is a provision prohibiting the
   presentation of material that constitutes libel, slander or invasion
   of privacy. The municipality's Regulations further provide that
   "(w)hen program violations are brought to the attention of the WPAC,
   it may take such steps that are necessary to comply with WPAC

SNIPPETS:

ROSENBLATT, J.:

In this common law defamation action, plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages

We conclude that plaintiffs' claim arises from the regulation of cable service, and therefore

Defendant Town of Woodstock granted non-party Kingston Cablevision, Inc., a franchise for the

In the franchise agreement, Kingston Cablevision agreed to provide public access capability

Plaintiffs assert that despite their complaints to members of the municipality's Town Board

Supreme Court held that 47 U.S.C. § 555aclothed the municipal defendants with immunity from

primary purpose of the legislation was "to assure that cable communications provide and are

The 1984 Act furthered the objective by empowering a local municipality, as franchisor, to

We agree that, as plaintiffs point out, the immunity provision was motivated by the need to

We disagree and rest our determination on the plain language of § 555a, which except for

In doing so, the Majority ignores principles of statutory interpretation the Supreme Court

Application of the plain meaning doctrine to find that Federal law has expressly preempted

Thus, the immediately preceding section, 47 USC § 555 gives cable operators access to the

In contrast to the instant case, the plaintiff in Coplin did not assert any State common-law


\|