Additional January, 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Court v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Additional January, 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Court v. Doe

71 A.D.2d 965, 419 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13222

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 9, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 965 (Additional January, 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Court v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Additional January, 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Court v. Doe, 71 A.D.2d 965, 419 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 6, 1979 in Albany County, which granted a motion directing respondent to appear and testify before the Additional January 1979 Grand Jury of the Albany County Supreme Court and denied respondent’s cross motion to quash or modify the subpoenas directing her appearance before that body. We withheld decision of this appeal when it was before us on a prior occasion and remitted the matter to Special Term so that it could [966]*966examine the contents of an investigatory file referred to in Executive Order No. 78 (9 NYCRR 3.78) for the purpose of determining whether certain subpoenas had been issued pursuant to the terms of that order (Matter of Additional January 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Ct. v Doe, 69 AD2d 955). Following an in camera inspection of the subject file, Special Term authored a report, dated June 5, 1979, in which it opined that they had been properly issued. However, Special Term made no detailed findings of fact concerning the status of that file when the Governor promulgated the disputed order and, more importantly, its report does not reflect that any effort was made to identify, segregate and preserve the various items contained in that file at the time the order was issued. As a result, we agree with respondent that it is still not possible to have meaningful appellate review of her contention that the subpoenas fall beyond the scope of the order. Accordingly, the matter should be remitted to Special Term once again with directions to assemble an adequate record and to make such findings as will permit us to reach a final disposition of this appeal. Decision withheld, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 6, 1979 in Albany County, which granted a motion directing respondent to appear and testify before the Additional January 1979 Grand Jury of the Albany County Supreme Court and denied respondent’s cross motion to quash or modify the subpoenas directing her appearance before that body. We withheld decision of this appeal when it was before us on a prior occasion and remitted the matter to Special Term so that it could [966]*966examine the contents of an investigatory file referred to in Executive Order No. 78 (9 NYCRR 3.78) for the purpose of determining whether certain subpoenas had been issued pursuant to the terms of that order (Matter of Additional January 1979 Grand Jury of Albany County Supreme Ct. v Doe, 69 AD2d 955). Following an in camera inspection of the subject file, Special Term authored a report, dated June 5, 1979, in which it opined that they had been properly issued. However, Special Term made no detailed findings of fact concerning the status of that file when the Governor promulgated the disputed order and, more importantly, its report does not reflect that any effort was made to identify, segregate and preserve the various items contained in that file at the time the order was issued. As a result, we agree with respondent that it is still not possible to have meaningful appellate review of her contention that the subpoenas fall beyond the scope of the order. Accordingly, the matter should be remitted to Special Term once again with directions to assemble an adequate record and to make such findings as will permit us to reach a final disposition of this appeal. Decision withheld, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 965, 419 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/additional-january-1979-grand-jury-of-albany-county-supreme-court-v-doe-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack