N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Service / ARTICLE Provisions Relating to Cable Television Companies
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Service Law § 219 (2026)

Franchise requirement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 219. Franchise requirement. 1. Notwithstanding any other law, no
cable television system, whether or not it is deemed to occupy or use a
public thoroughfare, may commence operations or expand the area it
serves unless it has been franchised by each municipality in which it
proposes to provide or extend service.
  2. A municipality shall have the power to require a franchise of any
cable television system providing service within the municipality,
notwithstanding that said cable television system does not occupy, use
or in any way traverse a public street. The provision of any municipal
charter or other law authorizing a municipality to require and grant
franchises is hereby enlarged and expanded, to the extent necessary, to
authorize such franchises.
  3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent franchise
requirements in excess of those prescribed by the commission, unless
such requirement is inconsistent with this article, any regulation,
policy or procedure of the commission, or federal law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2010 · leading case: Sanatass v. Consol. Investing Co., 887 N.E.2d 1125 (N.Y. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sanatass v. Consol. Investing Co., 887 N.E.2d 1125 (N.Y. 2008). · cites it 2× “Public Service Law § 219 also rendered Lancaster "powerless to determine which cable company is entitled to operate, repair or maintain the cable facilities on its property, since such decision lies with the municipality—the franchisor" ( id.”
Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assocs., 814 N.E.2d 784 (N.Y. 2004). “We disagree, Lancaster is powerless to determine which cable company is entitled to operate, repair or maintain the cable facilities on its property, since such decision lies with the municipality—the franchisor (see Public Service Law § 219). The City of New York gave Paragon…”
Morton v. State, 930 N.E.2d 271 (N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the owner was "powerless to determine which cable company [was] entitled to operate, repair or maintain the cable facilities on its property, since [pursuant to Public Service Law § 219] such decision lies with the municipality—the franchisor" ( id.”
Verizon New York, Inc. v. Bradbury, 10 Misc. 3d 785 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). “Prior to providing cable television service to a municipality such as Rye Brook, Verizon must first obtain a cable television franchise from Rye Brook (Public Service Law § 219 [1]). The process is initiated by a formal request for a cable franchise, upon receipt of which Rye…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.