Campbell v. Eichert

155 Misc. 164, 278 N.Y.S. 946, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1105
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 1935
StatusPublished

This text of 155 Misc. 164 (Campbell v. Eichert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campbell v. Eichert, 155 Misc. 164, 278 N.Y.S. 946, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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 Frankentbaler, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Faulkner v. Solazzi
65 A. 947 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1907)
Burks v. . Bosso
73 N.E. 58 (New York Court of Appeals, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 Misc. 164, 278 N.Y.S. 946, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-eichert-nyappterm-1935.