What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether the court opinion mentions that one or more of the members of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed dissented. Focus on whether there exists any statement to this effect in the opinion, for example "divided," "dissented," "disagreed," "split.". A reference, without more, to the "majority" or "plurality" does not necessarily evidence dissent (the other judges may have concurred). If a case arose on habeas corpus, indicate dissent if either the last federal court or the last state court to review the case contained one. If the highest court with jurisdiction to hear the case declines to do so by a divided vote, indicate dissent. If the lower court denies an en banc petition by a divided vote and the Supreme Court discusses same, indicate dissent.

Opinion:
LOMENZO, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. v. WMCA, INC., et al.
No. 81.
Decided June 20, 1966.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, Leonard Joseph and Malcolm H. Bell for appellants.
Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein, Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross for appellees.
Per Curiam.
In WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 382 U. S. 4, we affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York insofar as there appealed by WMCA, Inc., et al., the appellees in the present case. Appellants in this case, Lomenzo et al., challenge other aspects of the same judgment, and all parties now agree that, as to those aspects, the judgment of the District Court has been rendered moot by the actions, of the Court of Appeals of New York in In the Matter of Orans, 17 N. Y. 2d 107, 216 N. E. 2d 311 (1966), and In the Matter of Orans, 15 N. Y. 2d 339, 206 N. E. 2d 854, appeal dismissed 382 U. S. 10 (1965). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated as moot insofar as it concerns the issues here appealed, namely, whether N. Y. Laws 1964, cc. 977-978, 979, 981, are vio-lative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and whether the District Court was entitled to rely on provisions of the New York Constitution possibly affected by the action of this Court in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: Does the court opinion mention that one or more of the members of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed dissented?

Choices:
Yes
No

Answer: 1