NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, City of Rochester (city), appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Morrill, J.) ruling that the city’s taxation of the plaintiff, Verizon New England, Inc. (Verizon), for its use and occupation of public property violated Verizon’s equal protection rights. We affirm.

The defendant, City of Rochester ("City"), moves for summary judgment in cases 96-E-160, 96-E-165 and 97-E-123 arguing that the Supreme Court decision in New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. City of Rochester, 144 N.H. 118 (1999) finally resolves the issue of whether the City's amendments to the plaintiffs' pole licenses are lawful. The plaintiffs object and file cross- motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this order, the City's motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment are denied.

This case has a lengthy and well-litigated history. See Verizon New England, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263 (2004); New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Rochester, 144 N.H. 118 (1999); New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Franklin, 141 N.H. 449 (1996). To summarize briefly for purposes of this order, Rochester seeks to impose real estate taxes on Verizon for the public property used and occupied by its poles and wires. RSA 72:23, I. Verizon contends that Rochester’s selective imposition of the tax against Verizon alone violates its equal protection rights. Alternatively, if the application of the tax is ruled constitutional, Verizon seeks abatement. The trial of this matter took place from September 18 through September 21, 2006.