In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85

111 A.D.2d 891, 491 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50163

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

DecidedJune 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 891 (In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85) 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

In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85, 111 A.D.2d 891, 491 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), dated May 20, 1985, which denied an application to quash a Grand Jury subpoena.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the outset, we note that while an order determining an application to quash a subpoena relating to a criminal proceeding which was issued after the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 1.20 [17]) is not directly appealable by the immediate parties to that criminal action (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702; cf. Matter of Morgenthau v Hopes, 55 AD2d 255, lv dismissed 41 NY2d 1007), where, as here, the individual seeking appellate review of the order is not a party to the underlying criminal action, the order is final and appealable as to that individual (People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754; People v Marin, 86 AD2d 40).

[892]*892We conclude that the appellant’s application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena based on the existence of an alleged parent/child privilege is premature. A witness cannot raise the issue of privilege until he or she actually appears and is questioned (Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari, 39 NY2d 314; Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d 425). Accordingly, the application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena was properly denied. We note that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the child in any further proceedings. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), dated May 20, 1985, which denied an application to quash a Grand Jury subpoena.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the outset, we note that while an order determining an application to quash a subpoena relating to a criminal proceeding which was issued after the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 1.20 [17]) is not directly appealable by the immediate parties to that criminal action (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702; cf. Matter of Morgenthau v Hopes, 55 AD2d 255, lv dismissed 41 NY2d 1007), where, as here, the individual seeking appellate review of the order is not a party to the underlying criminal action, the order is final and appealable as to that individual (People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754; People v Marin, 86 AD2d 40).

[892]*892We conclude that the appellant’s application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena based on the existence of an alleged parent/child privilege is premature. A witness cannot raise the issue of privilege until he or she actually appears and is questioned (Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari, 39 NY2d 314; Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d 425). Accordingly, the application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena was properly denied. We note that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the child in any further proceedings. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 891, 491 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-grand-jury-subpoena-no-257385-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack