PENTHOUSE INT'L LTD. v. EASTMAN KODAK CO

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lester in his opinion which is reported in 179 N.J. Super. 155.

Absent proof that the process of defendant is akin to a monopoly or constitutes by analogy a public utility, we agree that defendant may assert the conditions here involved when accepting film for processing.