In re to Quash Two Grand Jury Subpoenas Relating to Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re to Quash Two Grand Jury Subpoenas Relating to Doe

180 A.D.2d 687, 579 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1448

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 687 (In re to Quash Two Grand Jury Subpoenas Relating to Doe) 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 to Quash Two Grand Jury Subpoenas Relating to Doe, 180 A.D.2d 687, 579 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to quash two grand jury subpoenas, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), entered June 14, 1991, which denied the application.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Inasmuch as the petitioner enjoys no possessory right in the subpoenaed documents which is superior to that of the District Attorney (cf., CPL 610.25 [1]) and inasmuch as the petitioner has complied with the two challenged subpoenas, this proceeding is academic (cf., Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners [People], 72 NY2d 307, cert denied 488 US 966; see also, Matter of Brunswick Hosp. Center v Hynes, 52 NY2d 333). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to quash two grand jury subpoenas, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), entered June 14, 1991, which denied the application.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Inasmuch as the petitioner enjoys no possessory right in the subpoenaed documents which is superior to that of the District Attorney (cf., CPL 610.25 [1]) and inasmuch as the petitioner has complied with the two challenged subpoenas, this proceeding is academic (cf., Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners [People], 72 NY2d 307, cert denied 488 US 966; see also, Matter of Brunswick Hosp. Center v Hynes, 52 NY2d 333). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 687, 579 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-to-quash-two-grand-jury-subpoenas-relating-to-doe-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack