INTER-CITY ASSOCS., INC. v. Doe
This text of 127 N.E.2d 872 (INTER-CITY ASSOCS., INC. v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of Inter-City Associates, Inc., Appellant, to Quash Subpna Duces Tecum in a Proceeding Entitled The People of the State of New York
v.
John Doe. The People of the State of New York, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Samuel L. Meltz for appellant.
T. Vincent Quinn, District Attorney (Lawrence Peirez and Eugene S. McQuade of counsel), for respondent.
CONWAY, Ch. J., DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE, JJ., concur.
*1044Per Curiam.
Inasmuch as this application to quash a subpna duces tecum was made in the Supreme Court, it is a civil proceeding, and is accordingly appealable (People v. "Doe" [Byk], 247 App. Div. 324, affd. 272 N.Y. 473; Matter of Ryan [Hogan], 306 N.Y. 11; Civ. Prac. Act, § 588, subd. 1, par. [a]).
The Appellate Division has dismissed the appeal, but in its opinion stated that if it "had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal *1045 on the merits, it would affirm the order". We agree that the Special Term order should be affirmed (Matter of Manning v. Valente, 272 App. Div. 358, affd. 297 N.Y. 681; Matter of Mohawk Overall Co., 210 N.Y. 474, motion to dismiss granted 235 U. S. 685).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with directions to Special Term to fix a new return date.
Ordered accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
127 N.E.2d 872, 308 N.Y. 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inter-city-assocs-inc-v-doe-ny-1955.