Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange

How courts have described this case

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

• holding under New York law that “[t]he only proper defendant in a lawsuit against an agency of a municipality is the municipality itself”
• concluding the plaintiffs established the second prong of the Wil-loth test because “the [Board’s] denial of [the plaintiffs] application has left [the plaintiff] with no feasible means of filing the gap”
• explaining that to establish necessity in the context of telecommunications facilities, a wireless provider “must demonstrate that (1) there was. a need for service; (2) its.proposed installation was safe ...; and (3) the proposed action was more feasible than other options”
• finding it relevant that “[a]t no time during the underlying proceedings did the [defendant town] contest the depicted gap in coverage”
• “In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities. The only proper defendant in a lawsuit against an agency of a municipality is the municipality itself”
• “In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities. The only proper defendant in a lawsuit against an agency of a municipality is the municipality itself, not the agency through which the municipality acted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).