City of New York v. Hodges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Hodges

285 A.D.2d 645, 728 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7709

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 30, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash subpoenas duces tecum, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Grosso, J.), dated September 21, 2000, as denied the petition and directed the District Attorney of Queens County and the New York City Police Department to “forward all their records and documents to the defense, regarding the investigation as it relates to defendant [William] Hodges, only.” The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated November 14, 2000, as, upon re-argument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 21, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 14, 2000, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 21, 2000, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the subpoenas duces tecum are quashed (see, Matter of Brown v Grosso, 285 AD2d 642 [decided herewith]). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash subpoenas duces tecum, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Grosso, J.), dated September 21, 2000, as denied the petition and directed the District Attorney of Queens County and the New York City Police Department to “forward all their records and documents to the defense, regarding the investigation as it relates to defendant [William] Hodges, only.” The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated November 14, 2000, as, upon re-argument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 21, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 14, 2000, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 21, 2000, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the subpoenas duces tecum are quashed (see, Matter of Brown v Grosso, 285 AD2d 642 [decided herewith]). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

City of New York v. Hodges, 285 A.D.2d 645, 728 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

285 A.D.2d 645 (City of New York v. Hodges) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related