In the Matter of K

4 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Eckert

    179 Misc. 181 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1942)   Cited 4 times

    November 20, 1942. Edwin G. O'Connor, District Attorney, for motion. Anthony Rizzo for defendant, opposed. OTTAWAY, J. The defendant, Eugene Eckert, has been previously before our courts and has been once convicted of felony. In the present case the indictment charges assault in the second degree. His somewhat erratic or unexplainable conduct had previously attracted the attention of the public authorities and again attracted attention when he was apprehended in the case before us. The result was

  2. People v. Randazzo

    179 Misc. 127 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1942)   Cited 3 times

    November 6, 1942. Thomas Cradock Hughes, Acting District Attorney ( Abraham Brodsky of counsel), for plaintiff. Caesar Barra for defendant. FITZGERALD, J. The defendant, while in custody under an indictment for burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, by order entered herein on August 26, 1942, was committed to the Division of Psychiatry of Bellevue Hospital for examination as an alleged mental defective. Under date of September 14, 1942, a report was submitted of the result of the examination

  3. People ex Rel. Aiello v. Warden of City Prison

    270 App. Div. 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

    June 17, 1946. In a habeas corpus proceeding, order sustaining the writ and discharging the relator on the ground that he had been illegally sentenced as a second offender, for the reason that a commitment to the Institution for Male Defective Delinquents at Napanoch is not a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1941 of the Penal Law, reversed on the law, the writ dismissed, and the relator remanded to custody. ( People ex rel. Mucciolo v. Snyder, 295 N.Y. 866.) Lewis, P.J., Hagarty, Johnston

  4. People ex Rel. Meyers v. Lawes

    242 App. Div. 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)   Cited 4 times

    June, 1934. Order reversed on the law, without costs, writ of habeas corpus sustained, and relator discharged from his present custody and remanded to the custody of the authorities of the Institution for Male Defective Delinquents at Napanoch, N.Y. In our opinion, the relator is a mental defective within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law, and, as such, was properly committed to the institution at Napanoch, under the provisions of section 438 Correct. of the Correction Law as it existed at the