You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails?   Change your spam controls and white list 

Subscriber loses false alarm fine case / Central station sued for calling old call numbers / ISC – last minute scheduling

July 20,  2021
ISC – last minute scheduling
          I’m writing this a week before ISC so not sure, but we may still have openings at our Round Tables and there may even be time for a private meeting [limited at this point to Concierge Clients].  If you want to check for openings call Stacy Spector,Esq at 516 987 8428.

ISC round tables - call to attend and participate
           Meet with experts.  Check for openings at the Round Tables.  Don't miss out on these free educational participation meetings.  Contact Stacy Spector,Esq at 516 987 8428 or for availability to participate

Confirmed round tables:
Tuesday July 20 from 11 am to 12pm Troy Iverson, Avantguard.  Central station issues and what's new at Avantguard
Tuesday July 20 from 2-3pm  Mitch Reitman.  Selling, taxes and structuring issues
Tuesday July 20 from 4-5PM Morgan Hertel, Rapid Response.  What's new at Rapid and exciting in central station operations
Wednesday July 21 from 10 -11am.  Shawn Iverson, The Insurance Center.  E&O coverage and insurance issues for alarm industry
Wednesday  July 21 from 2-3pm  Ken Kirschenbaum.  Contracts and how to respond to contract challenges
Wednesday July 21 from 4-5 pm  Ken KirschenbaumBuy - sell considerations from legal perspective.  How to plan for it and what to expect
Subscriber loses false alarm fine case
          A New York deli sued Suffolk County because it was fined for a false burglar alarm.  The case was decided by the Federal Court, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  You can read the fairly short decision on K&K website at Alarm Law Issues / Leading Cases / New York.  The case is Bens BBQ v Suffolk County.
          Constitutional issues were raised and rejected by the court.  That the fines were primarily revenue raising and an improper tax, also rejected.  Bottom line, the court held:
          “Finally, Bens argues that the False Alarm Law was enacted only as a means
for generating revenue. While the False Alarm Law does generate revenue, it is
also rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preserving scarce law
enforcement resources.”
Central station sued for calling old call numbers
          Central stations are provided with phone numbers to call when signals are received.  Some customers find the calls annoying, apparently especially when they were merely employees of the subscriber and no longer work for, or care about, the subscriber.
          Watts sued Emergency 24 because it called him when it received burglar alarm signals.  He no longer worked for the subscriber.  He starts a class action. 
          “Watts's sole count alleges that EMERgency24 violated the TCPA's prohibition against placing non-emergency calls to cell phone numbers using an ATDS without the prior express consent of the called party.”
          “Watts alleges that since approximately August 2015, EMERgency24 has called Watts's cell phone every time an alarm is tripped at a business at which he previously worked. (Id. ¶ 22.) Watts claims that although he has not been employed [*3] by that business for several years, EMERgency24 has continued to use an ATDS to call his stored cell phone number without his "express written consent" and despite his repeated demands not to be contacted. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23.) Watts brings his Complaint on behalf of himself and a proposed class of other individuals who he believes also received calls from EMERgency24 because their cell phone numbers are stored in its system, even though they did not provide their express consent to be called or withdrew their consent. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26.) Watts alleges that he and the members of the proposed class are entitled to damages for each call EMERgency24 has made to their cell phone numbers using an ATDS in violation of the TCPA. (Id. ¶ 38 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B)).)”
          The lawsuit claimed that Emergency 24 violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which in a nut shell prohibits automated robo calls.
          “Here, Watts does not allege that EMERgency24's system uses a random or sequential number generator. Watts pleads that EMERgency24's dialing equipment "is capable of contacting thousands of people a day," "stores numbers . . . of persons who have not given their express written consent to be called or who have since withdrawn their consent," and is used to call .. .”
          Emergency 24’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, but Watts was given leave to file an amended complaint.  You can read this case on K&K’s website under Alarm Law Issues /  Leading Cases / Illinois.  Watts v Emergency 24

To order up to date Standard Form Alarm /  Security / Fire and related Agreements, click here:
You can check out the program and sign up here: or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304.
NOTICE:  You can always read our Articles on our website at
THE ALARM EXCHANGEalarm classifieds alarm security contracts

    This area is reserved for alarm classifieds, alarm company announcements, solicitations, offers, etc. 
    There is no charge to post a listing here.Include your contact information, phone, email and web site.  If you would like to submit a post, please send an email to  To create a reciprocal link to our website, click here.

Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived: 
    Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list.  Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up.  You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site
Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301