Heisler v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heisler v. Hynes

56 A.D.2d 869, 392 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11235

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 869 (Heisler 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

Heisler v. Hynes, 56 A.D.2d 869, 392 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to quash a certain subpoena duces tecum, the parties cross-appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 5, 1977, which denied the application, but permits a representative of petitioner to be present during the audit, inspection and examination of the subpoenaed materials except when said materials are being presented to the Grand Jury. Resettled order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision which permits a representative of petitioner to be present during the audit, inspection and examination of the subpoenaed materials and by substituting therefor a provision that no such representative shall be entitled to be present during the audit, etc., of the said materials. As so modified, resettled order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Windsor Park Nursing Home v Hynes, 56 AD2d 872). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to quash a certain subpoena duces tecum, the parties cross-appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 5, 1977, which denied the application, but permits a representative of petitioner to be present during the audit, inspection and examination of the subpoenaed materials except when said materials are being presented to the Grand Jury. Resettled order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision which permits a representative of petitioner to be present during the audit, inspection and examination of the subpoenaed materials and by substituting therefor a provision that no such representative shall be entitled to be present during the audit, etc., of the said materials. As so modified, resettled order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Windsor Park Nursing Home v Hynes, 56 AD2d 872). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 869, 392 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heisler-v-hynes-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack