Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry Hirschberg, Petitioner, on Behalf of John W. Delaney, Relator, Appellant, against John F. McNeill, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1952-01-25
Citations: 303 N.Y. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry Hirschberg, Petitioner, on Behalf of John W. Delaney, Relator, Appellant, against John F. McNeill, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 303
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry Hirschberg, Petitioner, on Behalf of John W. Delaney, Relator, Appellant, against John F. McNeill, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, Respondent.
Argued January 14, 1952;
decided January 25, 1952.
Henry Hirschberg and Ernest M. Levinson for appellant.
The order of Special Term denying the right of an inmate of Matteawan State Hospital to private consultation with counsel violated rights guaranteed by both State and Federal Constitutions. (People v. McLaughlin, 291 N. Y. 480; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45; Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86; Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444; People ex rel. Mayor of City of N. Y. v. Nichols, 79 N. Y. 582; People ex rel. McDonald v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 463; People ex rel. Campbell v. Hannan, 56 Hun 469, 125 N. Y. 691; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378; People v. Hull, 251 App. Div. 40; People v. Gordon, 262 App. Div. 534; Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 9; People ex rel. Peabody v. Chanler, 133 App. Div. 159.)
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Raymond B. Madden, Wendell P. Brown and Herman N. Harcourt of counsel), for respondent.
The Commissioner of Correction may lawfully establish and cause the enforcement of rules and regulations for the government and supervision of Matteawan State Hospital and the inmates thereof. (Matter of Hughes v. Cashin, 184 Misc. 757; Matter of Thaw, 158 App. Div. 571.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Subdivision 4 of section 588 of the Civil Prac-
tice Act authorizes an appeal directly to this court from appropriate judgments or orders " where the only question involved on the appeal is the validity of a statutory provision of the state or of the United States under the constitution of the state or of the United States ". The validity of no statutory provision of the State or of the United States is here involved. The rule only of the hospital is questioned. Such a rule is not a statute within the meaning of the State Constitution (cf. F. T. B. Realty Corp. v. Goodman, 300 N. Y. 140, 144, 145).
The appeal should be dismissed, without costs.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed.