Campbell v. Eichert

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Campbell v. Eichert

155 Misc. 164, 278 N.Y.S. 946, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1105

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 21, 1935·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

155 Misc. 164 (Campbell v. Eichert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related