From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campbell v. Eichert

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 21, 1935
155 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1935)

Opinion

March 21, 1935.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Walter J. Ryan, for the appellant.

William T. Andrews [ John H. Lewis of counsel], for the respondent.


A beauty parlor is not specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Law, sections 40, 41, and is not a place of public accommodation under the common law or under the general terms of the statute. ( Burks v. Bosso, 180 N.Y. 341; Gibbs v. Arras Brothers, 222 id. 332; Faulkner v. Solazzi, 79 Conn. 541; 65 A. 947.) Where it is not conducted as part of a barber shop a beauty parlor is not included in that term as used in the statute.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, LYDON, HAMMER and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.


Summaries of

Campbell v. Eichert

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 21, 1935
155 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1935)
Case details for

Campbell v. Eichert

Case Details

Full title:MURIEL CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. PETER G. EICHERT, etc., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 21, 1935

Citations

155 Misc. 164 (N.Y. App. Term 1935)
278 N.Y.S. 946