Opinion · Nylaw New York

ODOM v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, 264 App. Div. 985 (1942)

SPENCER ODOM, Respondent, v. E. Ave. Corp., Appellant.JAY TONEY, Respondent, v. E. Ave. Corp., Appellant.HOMER SMITH, Respondent, v. E. Ave. Corp., Appellant.LOWELL PETERS, Respondent, v. E. Ave. Corp., Appellant., 264 A.D. 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department. 1942)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1942-09-23
Topic: general

ODOM v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, 264 App. Div. 985 (1942) SPENCER ODOM, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.JAY TONEY, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.HOMER SMITH, Respondent, v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ODOM v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, 264 App. Div. 985 (1942). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ODOM v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION,264 App. Div. 985(1942)

SPENCER ODOM, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.

JAY TONEY, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.

HOMER SMITH, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.

LOWELL PETERS, Respondent, v. EAST AVENUE CORPORATION, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.

September 23, 1942.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concur. (The order denies defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action in the complaints in four actions to recover penalties provided by statute for defendant's refusal to serve plaintiffs in defendant's dining room because they were negroes, and to recover damages suffered by plaintiffs because of the humiliation imposed by such refusal.)

Present — Crosby, P.J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ. [178 Misc. 363.]