Halper v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halper v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

151 A.D.2d 643, 542 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8213

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1989·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash a nonjudicial subpoena duces tecum, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated October 22, 1987, which denied his petition and granted the respondent’s cross application to compel compliance with the subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the petitioner’s time to comply with the subpoena is extended until 10 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Where the confidential nature of an investigation can be [644]*644demonstrated, as in this case, the Supreme Court has the discretionary authority to determine the validity of a subpoena on the basis of in camera submissions (see, Matter of Levin v Murawski, 59 NY2d 35, 42, n 4; Matter of Levin v Guest, 112 AD2d 830, 832; see also, Early v County of Nassau, 98 AD2d 789). In this case, the respondent’s investigation into possible professional medical misconduct required confidentiality (see, Public Health Law § 230 [11]). Consequently, the in camera procedure employed by the court was proper.

Furthermore, the respondent’s in camera submissions sufficiently established the relevancy of all the records requested. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kooper and Spatt, 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 a nonjudicial subpoena duces tecum, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated October 22, 1987, which denied his petition and granted the respondent’s cross application to compel compliance with the subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the petitioner’s time to comply with the subpoena is extended until 10 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Where the confidential nature of an investigation can be [644]*644demonstrated, as in this case, the Supreme Court has the discretionary authority to determine the validity of a subpoena on the basis of in camera submissions (see, Matter of Levin v Murawski, 59 NY2d 35, 42, n 4; Matter of Levin v Guest, 112 AD2d 830, 832; see also, Early v County of Nassau, 98 AD2d 789). In this case, the respondent’s investigation into possible professional medical misconduct required confidentiality (see, Public Health Law § 230 [11]). Consequently, the in camera procedure employed by the court was proper.

Furthermore, the respondent’s in camera submissions sufficiently established the relevancy of all the records requested. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Halper v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, 151 A.D.2d 643, 542 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

151 A.D.2d 643 (Halper v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related