From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Furlong

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1987
70 N.Y.2d 756 (N.Y. 1987)

Summary

dismissing as moot a challenge to a similarly worded Long Island park regulation

Summary of this case from People of the St. of N.Y. v. Bothwell

Opinion

Argued September 4, 1987

Decided October 6, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Herbert J. Lipp, J.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Marea M. Suozzi and Anthony J. Girese of counsel), for appellant.

Douglas J. Furlong, respondent pro se. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn and Christopher Keith Hall of counsel), amicus curiae.


Order affirmed. The legal issue raised has been rendered academic by amendment of the regulation to require proof of intent to consume (cf., People v Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 491).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

People v. Furlong

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1987
70 N.Y.2d 756 (N.Y. 1987)

dismissing as moot a challenge to a similarly worded Long Island park regulation

Summary of this case from People of the St. of N.Y. v. Bothwell
Case details for

People v. Furlong

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS J. FURLONG…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 6, 1987

Citations

70 N.Y.2d 756 (N.Y. 1987)
520 N.Y.S.2d 749
514 N.E.2d 1373

Citing Cases

Harkavy v. Consilvio

Because nonsecure treatment of detained sex offenders is no longer authorized under the relevant statutory…

People v. Buckley

Consequently, the court must find that the part of section 78-41 of the Town Code that prohibits the use of…