NOTE 13.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Cable Operations Litigation

Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC: The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation: Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions have been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending. Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court rules on the pending motions. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al.: On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Wandel v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al.: On February 24, 2012, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, purportedly on behalf of the nominal defendant Cablevision against all members of Cablevision's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants violated the fiduciary duties they owe to Cablevision by allegedly causing or allowing the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs; and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The parties have entered into a stipulation staying discovery until the U.S. District Court in the Livingston matter (above) rules on any motion to dismiss, and relieving defendants of the obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff files an amended complaint. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Patent Litigation

Cablevision is named as a defendant in certain lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of the Company's businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants. In certain of these cases the Company expects that any potential liability would be the responsibility of the Company's equipment vendors pursuant to applicable contractual indemnification provisions. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Other Legal Matters

On April 15, 2011, Thomas C. Dolan, a director and Executive Vice President, Strategy and Development, in the Office of the Chairman at Cablevision, filed a lawsuit against Cablevision and Rainbow Media Holdings in New York Supreme Court. The lawsuit raises compensation-related claims (seeking approximately $11,000) related to events in 2005. The matter is being handled under the direction of an independent committee of the Board of Directors of Cablevision. Based on the Company's assessment of this possible loss contingency, no provision has been made for this matter in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to various lawsuits, some involving claims for substantial damages. Although the outcome of these other matters cannot be predicted and the impact of the final resolution of these other matters on the Company's results of operations in a particular subsequent reporting period is not known, management does not believe that the resolution of these other lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company or the ability of the Company to meet its financial obligations as they become due.