From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nik-O-Lok Company v. Carey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 18, 1977
360 N.E.2d 1076 (N.Y. 1977)

Opinion

Argued January 11, 1977

Decided January 18, 1977

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, EDWARD S. CONWAY, J.

John T. DeGraff and Robert H. Iseman for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Lawrence L. Doolittle and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondents.


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.


Summaries of

Nik-O-Lok Company v. Carey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 18, 1977
360 N.E.2d 1076 (N.Y. 1977)
Case details for

Nik-O-Lok Company v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:NIK-O-LOK COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. HUGH L. CAREY, as Governor of the…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 18, 1977

Citations

360 N.E.2d 1076 (N.Y. 1977)
360 N.E.2d 1076
392 N.Y.S.2d 393

Citing Cases

Matter of Ventura

Prior to January 1, 1981, the New York statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd. 2) provided for a…

Katz v. Shapiro

Since the statute specifically requires only PPHA to submit an annual financial statement, and by virtue of…