New York Court of Appeals, 1973

People v. Carter

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 11, 1973 · Fuld and Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler Concur in Per Curiam Opinion Judge Breitel Taking No Part

31 N.Y.2d 964; 293 N.E.2d 254; 341 N.Y.S.2d 106; 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1526

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Menton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Topping (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Higby v. Mahoney (N.Y. 1979)
People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
People v. Midgett (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Hobson (N.Y. 1976)
People v. Esteves (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People ex rel. Mariello v. Montanye (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People ex rel. Seaman v. Warden, New York City Correctional Institution for Men (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Castro (N.Y. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*965 Per Curiam.

Since the record amply demonstrates the fact that the defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered his request for treatment, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. (See People v. Gordian, 39 A D 2d 861; cf. People v. Crafton, 31 N Y 2d 828.) As the Appellate Division declared in the Gordian case (39 A D 2d 861, supra), “ [t]he only purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not the defendant is an addict. If the court has determined that despite that fact a sentence to a penal institution is called for, there is no necessity for an examination. It would appear that the only instances where a report would be of any assistance to the court is where the court is in doubt as to whether the defendant is an addict and would commit him to the Commissioner if he were, and where the court has in mind suspending sentence. Absent both of these considerations, it is beyond cavil that the defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to order an examination. ’ ’

The order appealed from should be reversed and the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.