Court Opinion

ID: 9749560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:50:33.850893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:30.593775
License: Public Domain

Pkoctoe, J.
(dissenting). I see no reason why we should decide this case, since on the facts as stated by the majority the case is clearly moot. On the record presented to the Appellate Division, I would dissent essentially for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Conford, 104 N. J. Super. 187, 197 (App. Div. 1969), and for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Lavelle, decided today, 54 N. J. 315 (1969).
Jacobs, and Sohettitto, JJ., join in this dissent.
*315For affirmance— Chief Justice Weintbaub and Justices Francis, Hall and Haneman — 4.
For reversal — Justices Jacobs, Proctob and Schettino— 3.