People v. Taylor
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James E. Taylor, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Appellant’s contention that there existed concurrent conflicting commitments became academic when the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission discharged appellant from its care and custody in order to serve his prison sentence (Mental Hygiene Law, § 211-a).
Concurrence
Concur: Chief Judge Full and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
30 N.Y.2d 899 (1972)
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
James E. Taylor, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued June 8, 1972. Decided July 6, 1972.
Daniel J. Weinstein and Nathaniel A. Barrell for appellant.
Michael F. Dillon , District Attorney ( Marshall L. Goldstein of counsel), for respondent.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.
Order affirmed. Appellant's contention that there existed concurrent conflicting commitments became academic when the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission discharged appellant from its care and custody in order to serve his prison sentence (Mental Hygiene Law, § 211-a).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.