DeCrow v. Hotel Syracuse Corp.

Decision Date04 April 1969
Citation298 N.Y.S.2d 859,59 Misc.2d 383
PartiesKaren DeCROW, Plaintiff, v. HOTEL SYRACUSE CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Faith A. Seidenberg, Syracuse, for plaintiff.

Handock, Ryan, Shove & Hust, Syracuse, for defendant.

DECISION

JAMES H. O'CONNOR, Justice.

The plaintiff in the above entitled action moves this Court for a protective order under Section 3103 CPLR to prevent unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment and/or disadvantage to the plaintiff in the conduct of an examination of the plaintiff upon oral questions and further for a protective order pursuant to Rule 3122 and Section 3103 CPLR limiting the use of a disclosure device as to certain documents requested by the examining defendant.

The defendant cross moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 3212 CPLR dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint pleads no cause of action.

This Court addresses itself to the cross motion of the defendant in the first instance, since a resolution of the issues raised by that motion would certainly obviate any decision in regard to a protective order.

The complaint alleges in substance that on July 31, 1968 and on October 3, 1968 (the complaint having been amended by stipulation at the Examination Before Trial of the plaintiff to substitute October 3, 1968 instead of November 21, 1968), the plaintiff went to the Rainbow Lounge owned and operated by the defendant in the City of Syracuse, New York, where said defendant through its agents, servants and employees knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully refused to give full and equal accommodation, advantages and privileges to plaintiff because of her female sex. The complaint alleges that such actions of the defendant were in violation of Section 40--c, 40--e and 41 of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York. Therefore the plaintiff claims to have suffered mental anguish and public embarrassment and thus is entitled to recover the penalty prescribed in Section 40--d and Section 41 of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York for each occasion where her rights were so infringed upon.

The facts adduced at the Examination Before Trial of the plaintiff indicate that on July 3, 1968 she could not obtain an intoxicating drink without an escort at the bar of the defendant, Rainbow Lounge, although she would have been served at a table near the bar. On October 3, 1968 a picket demonstration was held against the defendant demanding equal status for women, after which the plaintiff approached the bar of the Rainbow Lounge and requested service. Again, she was refused. The plaintiff could not remember whether any of the defendant's representatives suggested that she then go to a table for service. Nowhere in the Examination Before Trial was there any indication that the plaintiff was refused accommodation of any sort other than the refusal to serve her an intoxicating beverage while unescorted at the bar.

A prior action had been commenced by the plaintiff and two others against the defendant in 288 F.Supp. 530, 532 Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiffs in that action sought a judgment declaring the defendant's refusal to serve an unescorted woman at a bar in the Rainbow Lounge 'illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional'. The basis of the claim was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C.A. section 2000a(a). That statute reads as follows:--

§ 2000a.

Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation--Equal access

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

In interpreting the application of Section 2000a of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its applicability to the facts before the Court, the learned District Judge held that the statute did not proscribe discrimination on account of sex for the simple reason that the statute did not say so. As the Court said (p. 532):

'Even a hasty examination of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the fallacy of such analogy apparent. The conduct of hotels and restaurants is governed by section 201(a) of said Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a(a)). The full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations without discrimination on account of 'race, color, religion, or national origin' (emphasis added), including the right to be served at a bar, has been guaranteed by Congress. No such guarantee has been made on account of Sex. This Court should not gratuitously do what Congress has not seen fit to do. Mrs. Kennedy's complaint should be addressed to Congress.'

In the instant case the plaintiff seeks to find a violation of her civil rights under the New York State Civil Rights Law specifically Sections 40--c, 40--e and 41.

Section 41 is a penalty statute which affords certain penalties for violations of Section 40, 40--a, 40--b, 42 and 43 of the Civil Rights Law. Therefore Section 41 Civil Rights Law is not applicable to the instant case in that it refers to Section 40 Civil Rights Law which is pertinent to the instant matter only as follows:--

' § 40. Equal rights in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement.

All...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Seidenberg v. McSORLEYS'OLD ALE HOUSE, INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 25, 1970
    ...a complaint virtually identical to that before us does not state a cause of action under that law. DeCrow v. Hotel Syracuse Corporation, 59 Misc.2d 383, 298 N.Y.S.2d 859 (Sup.Ct.1969).4 There being "no genuine issue of material fact" between the parties, 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.04......
  • Seidenberg v. McSORLEYS'OLD ALE HOUSE, INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 9, 1969
    ...the public accommodations law. DeCrow v. Hotel Syracuse Corp., 288 F.Supp. 530, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 1968); see DeCrow v. Hotel Syracuse Corp., 59 Misc.2d 383, 298 N.Y.S.2d 859 (Sup.Ct.1969). Moreover, recent decisions have found Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 inapplicable to bars and......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT