Opinion
Submitted September 23, 1969
Decided September 25, 1969
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Claimant argued that his commitment in 1936 and his retention pursuant to the then existing section 384 of the Correction Law constituted a violation of his rights under the equal protection clause (see Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107), entitling him to damages for his retention in a criminal rather than a civil hospital for the insane. The Court of Appeals considered this contention and held that claimant had no right to damages based on a retrospective application of Baxstrom v. Herold ( supra). Other constitutional issues based on violation of due process raised by claimant were not determinative because the court concluded that he sustained no actionable damages.