Goldman v. Snyder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Snyder

278 A.D. 979, 105 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422

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

DecidedJune 25, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 979 (Goldman v. Snyder) 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

Goldman v. Snyder, 278 A.D. 979, 105 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the writ was sustained and the prisoner discharged from Sing Sing Prison on a showing that, after indictment and prior to sentence, he had been committed to Matteawan State Hospital under section 662-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on a conclusion that he was entitled to a deduction from his term of sentence equal to the period of confinement in the hospital. Order reversed on the law, the writ dismissed, and the prisoner remanded to the Warden of Sing Sing Prison. The period of treatment in the State hospital was not time spent in a prison or jail prior to sentence, within the meaning of section 2193 of the Penal Law. Habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. Holán, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the writ was sustained and the prisoner discharged from Sing Sing Prison on a showing that, after indictment and prior to sentence, he had been committed to Matteawan State Hospital under section 662-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on a conclusion that he was entitled to a deduction from his term of sentence equal to the period of confinement in the hospital. Order reversed on the law, the writ dismissed, and the prisoner remanded to the Warden of Sing Sing Prison. The period of treatment in the State hospital was not time spent in a prison or jail prior to sentence, within the meaning of section 2193 of the Penal Law. Habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. Holán, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 979, 105 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-snyder-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack