Spence v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spence v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3517

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 810 (Spence 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

Spence v. Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, 30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 18, 1967, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, a jury review of an order of certification, pursuant to subdivision 7 of section 206 of the Mental Hygiene Law, is unavailable to a certified addict who, when brought before the court upon a petition made by someone other than himself, has voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to a hearing, admitted his addiction and consented to certification and commitment. In such a case, the addict has placed himself in the same position as a self-petitioner, who is not granted such review by the statute. Furthermore, appellant’s decision not to [811]*811contest certification and his consent to commitment for treatment of his addiction constituted a waiver of any right he might otherwise have had to a statutory review. However, appellant is not without remedy to test the legality of his commitment, should he be advised to contest it (see Mental Hygiene Law, § 206, subd. 8). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 18, 1967, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, a jury review of an order of certification, pursuant to subdivision 7 of section 206 of the Mental Hygiene Law, is unavailable to a certified addict who, when brought before the court upon a petition made by someone other than himself, has voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to a hearing, admitted his addiction and consented to certification and commitment. In such a case, the addict has placed himself in the same position as a self-petitioner, who is not granted such review by the statute. Furthermore, appellant’s decision not to [811]*811contest certification and his consent to commitment for treatment of his addiction constituted a waiver of any right he might otherwise have had to a statutory review. However, appellant is not without remedy to test the legality of his commitment, should he be advised to contest it (see Mental Hygiene Law, § 206, subd. 8). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spence-v-narcotic-addiction-control-commission-nyappdiv-1968.