Inter-City Associates, Inc. v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inter-City Associates, Inc. v. Doe

285 A.D. 1183, 141 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089

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

DecidedMay 25, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1183 (Inter-City Associates, Inc. v. 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

Inter-City Associates, Inc. v. Doe, 285 A.D. 1183, 141 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, denying its petition to vacate, quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum issued by the District Attorney of Queens County, returnable before a grand jury which had been drawn for the County Court of Queens County, and directing petitioner to comply with the subpoena to the extent and in the manner set forth in said order. Appeal dismissed. (Matter of Twrecamo Contr. Co., 260 App. Div. 253; Code Grim. Pro., § 517.) If this court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the merits, it would affirm the order. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, denying its petition to vacate, quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum issued by the District Attorney of Queens County, returnable before a grand jury which had been drawn for the County Court of Queens County, and directing petitioner to comply with the subpoena to the extent and in the manner set forth in said order. Appeal dismissed. (Matter of Twrecamo Contr. Co., 260 App. Div. 253; Code Grim. Pro., § 517.) If this court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the merits, it would affirm the order. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1183, 141 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inter-city-associates-inc-v-doe-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack