Case Name: Muriel Campbell, Respondent, v. Peter G. Eichert, etc., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1935-03-21
Citations: 155 Misc. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: Muriel Campbell, Respondent, v. Peter G. Eichert, etc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
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.

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.