Brickhouse v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brickhouse v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

54 A.D.2d 904, 387 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14734

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 904 (Brickhouse v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brickhouse v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, 54 A.D.2d 904, 387 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to rescind and vacate a delinquency arrest warrant issued by respondent and to compel it to discharge petitioner from its further care and custody, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 8, 1975, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner may not rely upon section 81.31 of the Mental Hygiene Law for the proposition that respondent had a duty to discharge him from its care and custody because of his subsequent prison sentence. The language of that section is not mandatory. Respondent did not abuse its discretion by deciding to continue petitioner in the drug treatment program. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to rescind and vacate a delinquency arrest warrant issued by respondent and to compel it to discharge petitioner from its further care and custody, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 8, 1975, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner may not rely upon section 81.31 of the Mental Hygiene Law for the proposition that respondent had a duty to discharge him from its care and custody because of his subsequent prison sentence. The language of that section is not mandatory. Respondent did not abuse its discretion by deciding to continue petitioner in the drug treatment program. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 904, 387 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brickhouse-v-narcotic-addiction-control-commission-nyappdiv-1976.