City of New York v. Gentile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Gentile

248 A.D.2d 382, 669 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 382 (City of New York v. Gentile) 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

City of New York v. Gentile, 248 A.D.2d 382, 669 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursu[383]*383ant to CPLR 2304 to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County, in a criminal action entitled People v Gentile, pending under Indictment No. 2612/ 96, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), dated May 22, 1997, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the application to quash is granted.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s application to discover certain police records in connection with his pending criminal action since there is no statutory basis for such discovery (see, Matter of Pirro v LaCava, 230 AD2d 909, 910). Discovery which is unavailable pursuant to statute may not be ordered based on principles of due process because “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases” (Matter of Miller v Schwartz, 72 NY2d 869, 870, citing Weatherford v Bursey, 429 US 545, 559). Therefore, the petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena should have been granted.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursu[383]*383ant to CPLR 2304 to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County, in a criminal action entitled People v Gentile, pending under Indictment No. 2612/ 96, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), dated May 22, 1997, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the application to quash is granted.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s application to discover certain police records in connection with his pending criminal action since there is no statutory basis for such discovery (see, Matter of Pirro v LaCava, 230 AD2d 909, 910). Discovery which is unavailable pursuant to statute may not be ordered based on principles of due process because “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases” (Matter of Miller v Schwartz, 72 NY2d 869, 870, citing Weatherford v Bursey, 429 US 545, 559). Therefore, the petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena should have been granted.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 382, 669 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-gentile-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack