Eco's Food Co. v. Kuriansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eco's Food Co. v. Kuriansky

100 A.D.2d 878, 474 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17995

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

DecidedApril 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 878 (Eco's Food Co. v. Kuriansky) 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

Eco's Food Co. v. Kuriansky, 100 A.D.2d 878, 474 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by petitioners from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), dated January 12, 1984, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash a Grand Jury subpoena duces tecum upon the ground that it is constitutionally overbroad. H Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 1 Because petitioners did not produce any concrete evidence that the subpoenaed documents had no conceivable relevance to the Grand Jury investigation, they failed to overcome the subpoena’s presumption of validity (see Virag v Hynes, 54 NY2d 437; Matter of Horowitz, 482 F2d 72; Matter of Doe v Kuriansky, 91 AD2d 1068). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied petitioners’ motion to quash the subpoena. Lazer, J. P., Man- . gano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by petitioners from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), dated January 12, 1984, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash a Grand Jury subpoena duces tecum upon the ground that it is constitutionally overbroad. H Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 1 Because petitioners did not produce any concrete evidence that the subpoenaed documents had no conceivable relevance to the Grand Jury investigation, they failed to overcome the subpoena’s presumption of validity (see Virag v Hynes, 54 NY2d 437; Matter of Horowitz, 482 F2d 72; Matter of Doe v Kuriansky, 91 AD2d 1068). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied petitioners’ motion to quash the subpoena. Lazer, J. P., Man- . gano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 878, 474 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ecos-food-co-v-kuriansky-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack