Biben v. Indian Cultural & Community Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biben v. Indian Cultural & Community Center

95 A.D.3d 626, 944 N.Y.S.2d 129

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

DecidedMay 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 626 (Biben v. Indian Cultural & Community Center) 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

Biben v. Indian Cultural & Community Center, 95 A.D.3d 626, 944 N.Y.S.2d 129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered December 14, 2011, which granted petitioner’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena and denied respondent’s cross motion to quash or limit the subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s issuance of a subpoena in connection with respondent’s purchase of state-owned property was within her statutory authority to investigate allegations of corruption and abuse in covered state-agencies (Executive Law §§ 53, 54). The subpoena was issued pursuant to petitioner’s legitimate inquiry as to whether the property was sold at a price that was artificially lowered, in exchange for campaign donations, and that the initial intended restriction of use of the property was modified from that of a community center to include senior housing. Accordingly, the request for information and documents relating to the financing of respondent’s purchase of the property was relevant and material to petitioner’s investigation into the sale of the property (see e.g. Carl Andrews & Assoc., Inc. v Office of the Inspector Gen. of the State of N.Y., 85 AD3d 633 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 805 [2012]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments, including that petitioner’s investigation resulted in its investors being harassed, and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered December 14, 2011, which granted petitioner’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena and denied respondent’s cross motion to quash or limit the subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s issuance of a subpoena in connection with respondent’s purchase of state-owned property was within her statutory authority to investigate allegations of corruption and abuse in covered state-agencies (Executive Law §§ 53, 54). The subpoena was issued pursuant to petitioner’s legitimate inquiry as to whether the property was sold at a price that was artificially lowered, in exchange for campaign donations, and that the initial intended restriction of use of the property was modified from that of a community center to include senior housing. Accordingly, the request for information and documents relating to the financing of respondent’s purchase of the property was relevant and material to petitioner’s investigation into the sale of the property (see e.g. Carl Andrews & Assoc., Inc. v Office of the Inspector Gen. of the State of N.Y., 85 AD3d 633 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 805 [2012]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments, including that petitioner’s investigation resulted in its investors being harassed, and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 626, 944 N.Y.S.2d 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biben-v-indian-cultural-community-center-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack