Judge Rejects Crown Castle Suit Against Oyster Bay
A federal judge sided with a New York town in a wireless siting lawsuit. Crown Castle claimed Oyster Bay violated sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act when it banned wireless facilities amid public opposition resulting from “unfounded fears”…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
of RF emissions (see 1807240047). Friday at U.S. District Court in Central Islip, Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay recommended (in Pacer) Crown Castle’s Telecom Act claims “be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims be denied, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims be granted and Plaintiff’s motion to strike be denied as moot.” Lindsay agreed with the city that the court lacks jurisdiction under Section 332 because the company’s claims aren’t ripe -- Crown Castle never applied for necessary permits so the town never denied them. Crown Castle failed to point to a regulation or any part of the town code that violates Section 253, the judge said. “We’re pleased the court acknowledged the Town’s claim to be valid,” as Oyster Bay “issues building permits to protect the welfare and safety of the public,” a spokesperson emailed Monday. The company declined comment. U.S. District Court in Delaware heard argument Monday in another wireless siting dispute, T-Mobile v. Wilmington (see 2002240036).