Clotilde Crespo accused a T-Mobile subsidiary of tapping into her electricity and sued for the value of the stolen service.
When the New York County Civil Court denied a dismissal request, the company appealed.
Since T-Mobile wasn't a tenant of Clotilde's building, nor performed any work therein, the Appellate Term, First Department, thought the company wasn't liable for its subsidiary's alleged misconduct. (It didn't help her case that Clotilde lacked evidence that T-Mobile "intentionally assumed or exercised control" over the lady's juice.)
Will that stick together ?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Crespo v. T-Mobile