Court Should Grant Summary Judgment for Crown Castle, Says Reply

A court report and recommendation (R&R) that Crown Castle should be granted summary judgment against Oyster Bay, New York, on its claims that the town unlawfully blocked its applications to install 23 small wireless facilities in public rights of way (see 2401220028) was “well-reasoned,” said Crown Castle’s response Friday (docket 2:21-cv-06305) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. Each of U.S. Magistrate Judge Wicks’ “overarching” determinations, “has clear support in the undisputed evidentiary record in this case,” it said. Each, on its own, warrants an award of summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor, it said. The town’s written denial of the company’s applications isn’t supported by substantial evidence on record, in violation of Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, it said. Its denial effectively prohibited provision of wireless services, also in violation of Section 332, Crown Castle said. Oyster Bay’s denial also materially inhibits the ability of telecommunications providers like Crown Castle to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment, and therefore has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of telecommunications services, in violation of the TCA’s Section 253, the response said. The town’s objections to Wicks’ R&R “should be rejected as without merit,” said Crown Castle. “They completely ignore the undisputed material facts of this case, are based upon an incorrect standard of law,” and are contrary to well-established 2nd Circuit precedent, it said. The objections “are nothing more than a smokescreen” to hide the fact that the undisputed facts and unambiguous case law set forth in the R&R “conclusively demonstrate” that Wicks’ conclusions “are well-grounded and have clear support in the record and in the law,” it said. Crown Castle asks that the court adopt the R&R in its entirety and grant summary judgment in the company's favor on all counts, it said.