Echel Gasoline Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Echel Gasoline Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

108 A.D.2d 717, 485 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43057

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 717 (Echel Gasoline Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs) 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

Echel Gasoline Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 108 A.D.2d 717, 485 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to vacate, cancel and set aside a subpoena duces tecum served by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs upon Exxon Corporation, the New York City. Department of Consumer Affairs appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated February 28, 1983, as granted the application.

[718]*718Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and application dismissed.

Petitioner has no proprietary interest in the subpoenaed documents and, therefore, does not have standing to challenge a subpoena served on a third party (see, 38-14 Realty Corp. v New York City Dept, of Consumer Affairs, 103 AD2d 804). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to vacate, cancel and set aside a subpoena duces tecum served by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs upon Exxon Corporation, the New York City. Department of Consumer Affairs appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated February 28, 1983, as granted the application.

[718]*718Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and application dismissed.

Petitioner has no proprietary interest in the subpoenaed documents and, therefore, does not have standing to challenge a subpoena served on a third party (see, 38-14 Realty Corp. v New York City Dept, of Consumer Affairs, 103 AD2d 804). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 717, 485 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/echel-gasoline-corp-v-new-york-city-department-of-consumer-affairs-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack