People v. Giorandino

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Giorandino

62 Misc. 2d 926, 310 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1806

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Misc. 2d 926 (People v. Giorandino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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 v. Giorandino, 62 Misc. 2d 926, 310 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s alleged use of cocaine does not warrant a finding that he is a “ narcotic addict ”, as defined in subdivision 2 of section 201 of the Mental Hygiene Law. This statute concerns itself with persons who are dependent or in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon 1 ‘ opium, heroin, morphine or any derivative or synthetic drug of that group ”. With commendable candor, the District Attorney and the Trial Judge concede that cocaine is not a narcotic drug within any of these categories and that the certification of the defendant was improper under the circumstances.

The judgment of conviction should be unanimously modified on the law and facts by vacating certification of defendant to the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission and case remanded to the District Court, Nassau County, for resentencing; as so modified, judgment of conviction affirmed.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s alleged use of cocaine does not warrant a finding that he is a “ narcotic addict ”, as defined in subdivision 2 of section 201 of the Mental Hygiene Law. This statute concerns itself with persons who are dependent or in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon 1 ‘ opium, heroin, morphine or any derivative or synthetic drug of that group ”. With commendable candor, the District Attorney and the Trial Judge concede that cocaine is not a narcotic drug within any of these categories and that the certification of the defendant was improper under the circumstances.

The judgment of conviction should be unanimously modified on the law and facts by vacating certification of defendant to the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission and case remanded to the District Court, Nassau County, for resentencing; as so modified, judgment of conviction affirmed.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Misc. 2d 926, 310 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-giorandino-nyappterm-1970.