Home/New York Court of Appeals/Nik-O-Lok Co. v. Carey

Nik-O-Lok Co. v. Carey

360 N.E.2d 1076, 40 N.Y.2d 1089, 392 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 1827
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 18, 1977·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. Despite cogent arguments addressed to the wisdom and desirability of the instant legislation, there is no question that the State has the power to prohibit or regulate the commercialization of toilet facilities. For analysis of some of the particular issues of unconstitutionality urged on grounds of due process of the law and equal protection of the laws, see opinion of Mr. Justice T. Paul Kane at the Appellate Division in Nik-O-Lok v Carey (52 AD2d 375).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

In Nik-O-Lok v Carey: Order affirmed, with costs.

In Tads Enterprises v Carey: Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Nik-O-Lok Co. v. Carey, 360 N.E.2d 1076, 40 N.Y.2d 1089, 392 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 1827 (N.Y. 1977).

360 N.E.2d 1076 (Nik-O-Lok Co. v. Carey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Ventura
108 Misc. 2d 281 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
City of Albany v. Lee
76 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Katz v. Shapiro
62 A.D.2d 231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Cary v. Cary
94 Misc. 2d 257 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Frank v. State
61 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Health Insurance Ass'n of America v. Harnett
89 Misc. 2d 795 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)