People ex rel. Rivera v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Rivera v. Murphy

30 A.D.2d 900, 293 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3347

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 900 (People ex rel. Rivera v. Murphy) 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

People ex rel. Rivera v. Murphy, 30 A.D.2d 900, 293 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, entered November 29, 1967, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was found to be a narcotics addict within the meaning of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law (§§ 200-217) and, pursuant thereto, was certified to the care and custody of the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission for a period not to exceed three years. In seeking his release from the Woodbourne Rehabilitation Center he raises substantially the same issues as were raised in People ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy (30 A D 2d 358). Any additional claims raised we find insubstantial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. [901]*901Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, entered November 29, 1967, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was found to be a narcotics addict within the meaning of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law (§§ 200-217) and, pursuant thereto, was certified to the care and custody of the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission for a period not to exceed three years. In seeking his release from the Woodbourne Rehabilitation Center he raises substantially the same issues as were raised in People ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy (30 A D 2d 358). Any additional claims raised we find insubstantial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. [901]*901Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 900, 293 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rivera-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1968.