American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. New York City Human Resources Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that filed tariff doctrine would not preclude defendant from avoiding charges by proving willful misconduct pursuant to the Tariff
• finding that contract that included “incidental” installation services was still one for the sale of goods, and thus barring the plaintiffs tort claims under the economic loss doctrine
• discussing whether calls “originated” at plaintiffs number so as to fall under AT & T’s tariff
• granting AT & T’s motion for summary judgment in case of unauthorized access to the city's long-distance telephone service
• plaintiff can maintain negligence action for a service contract provided he can demonstrate violation of a legal duty independent of the contract
• “The general rule under New York law is that economic loss is not recoverable under a theory of negligence or strict products liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).