Moon v. Getty Realty Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Moon v. Getty Realty Corp.

203 Misc. 273, 118 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 26, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 Misc. 273 (Moon v. Getty Realty Corp.) 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

Moon v. Getty Realty Corp., 203 Misc. 273, 118 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court has held that the right under the statute is strictly personal, and that the statute, penal in nature, must be strictly construed; the plaintiff must clearly bring himself within its terms (Cohn v. Goldgraben, 103 Misc. 500). Section 41 of the Civil Rights Law provides that recovery may be had against any “ agency, bureau, corporation or association * * * by the person aggrieved thereby, ’ ’ while section 40 provides that all “ persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations,” etc. This would indicate that it was the legislative intent that the recovery be only in a person; it is apparent from the record ¿hat the plaintiff was not acting as an individual in her dealings with the defendants and therefore the defendants did not refuse the reservation to the plaintiff personally.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs^

Hofstadter, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

This court has held that the right under the statute is strictly personal, and that the statute, penal in nature, must be strictly construed; the plaintiff must clearly bring himself within its terms (Cohn v. Goldgraben, 103 Misc. 500). Section 41 of the Civil Rights Law provides that recovery may be had against any “ agency, bureau, corporation or association * * * by the person aggrieved thereby, ’ ’ while section 40 provides that all “ persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations,” etc. This would indicate that it was the legislative intent that the recovery be only in a person; it is apparent from the record ¿hat the plaintiff was not acting as an individual in her dealings with the defendants and therefore the defendants did not refuse the reservation to the plaintiff personally.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs^

Hofstadter, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Misc. 273, 118 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moon-v-getty-realty-corp-nyappterm-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack