Case ID: misc_155/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Muriel Campbell, Respondent, v. Peter G. Eichert, etc., Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 21, 1935.
    
      
      Walter J. Ryan, for the appellant.
    
      William T. Andrews [John H. Lewis of counsel], for the respondent.
   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.