Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

NIK-O-LOK COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. HUGH L. CAREY, as Go

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 A.D.2d 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

NIK-O-LOK COMPANY v. CAREY
(Jan 18, 1977)