Grossman v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Hynes

72 A.D.2d 508, 421 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13528

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 508 (Grossman v. Hynes) 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

Grossman v. Hynes, 72 A.D.2d 508, 421 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 22,1979, which denied petitioner’s application to quash subpoena duces tecum and directed petitioner to comply with the subpoena unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Although the November, 1976 cross motion by the Special Prosecutor to compel compliance with the subpoena duces tecum was deemed abandoned by virtue of 22 NYCRR 660.8 (a) (6) the subpoena was still outstanding. Thus, in February, 1979, when the Special Prosecutor sought entry of an order based on the November, 1976 cross motion, Special [509]*509Term, in effect, treated the motion as a new motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and required the Special Prosecutor to show good cause for the material initially subpoenaed and afforded petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The resultant order which denied the petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed compliance with same and which is appealed from, is supported by the record. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Bloom, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 22,1979, which denied petitioner’s application to quash subpoena duces tecum and directed petitioner to comply with the subpoena unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Although the November, 1976 cross motion by the Special Prosecutor to compel compliance with the subpoena duces tecum was deemed abandoned by virtue of 22 NYCRR 660.8 (a) (6) the subpoena was still outstanding. Thus, in February, 1979, when the Special Prosecutor sought entry of an order based on the November, 1976 cross motion, Special [509]*509Term, in effect, treated the motion as a new motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and required the Special Prosecutor to show good cause for the material initially subpoenaed and afforded petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The resultant order which denied the petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed compliance with same and which is appealed from, is supported by the record. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Bloom, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 508, 421 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-hynes-nyappdiv-1979.