Carvallo v. Cooper

Peremptory mandamus order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. An ordinance which prohibits an alien from conducting a lodging house is void in so far as it applies to immigrant lodging houses, since the ordinance is inconsistent and in conflict with section 156 of the Labor Law, f which does not prohibit an alien from conducting an immigrant lodging house. (People ex rel. Kieley v. Lent, 166 App. Div. 550 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 626 ; People v. Gilbert, 68 Misc. 48 ; 43 C. J. pp. 215-218.) The prohibition against the conduct of a general lodging house by an alien is inconsistent with the State policy, as declared by section 156 of the Labor Law,^[2] which does not prohibit an alien from conducting an immigrant lodging house. (2 Dillon Mun. Corp. [5th ed.] § 601; approved, Mills v. Sweeney, 219 N. Y. 213 , at p. 219.) There is nothing about the conduct of a general lodging house which differentiates it from an immigrant lodging house in the manner of conduct thereof or as a source of greater evils, if any, to be appre