Kennedy v. Curran

New York Court of Appeals

Kennedy v. Curran

301 N.E.2d 438, 33 N.Y.2d 590, 347 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1082

DecidedJuly 3, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 301 N.E.2d 438 (Kennedy v. Curran) 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.

Bluebook

Kennedy v. Curran, 301 N.E.2d 438, 33 N.Y.2d 590, 347 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1082 (N.Y. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division that the subpoena served upon petitioner was improperly quashed by the court at Special Term. The commission’s scheduling of his examination in New York City was eminently proper. (L. 1958, ch. 989, § 2, subd. 11, par. a; see, e.g., Matter of Ryan v. Temporary State Comm. of Investigation, 12 N Y 2d 708; Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 18 N Y 2d 977.) It is only necessary to add that issuance of a subpoena does not violate the privilege against self incrimination provision of either the State or Federal Constitution and [592]*592that any question of plaintiff’s immunity arises only upon assertion by the witness of his privilege following his attendance at the examination in response to the subpoena. (See, e.g., Matter of Boikess v. Aspland, 24 N Y 2d 136.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Breitel, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division that the subpoena served upon petitioner was improperly quashed by the court at Special Term. The commission’s scheduling of his examination in New York City was eminently proper. (L. 1958, ch. 989, § 2, subd. 11, par. a; see, e.g., Matter of Ryan v. Temporary State Comm. of Investigation, 12 N Y 2d 708; Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 18 N Y 2d 977.) It is only necessary to add that issuance of a subpoena does not violate the privilege against self incrimination provision of either the State or Federal Constitution and [592]*592that any question of plaintiff’s immunity arises only upon assertion by the witness of his privilege following his attendance at the examination in response to the subpoena. (See, e.g., Matter of Boikess v. Aspland, 24 N Y 2d 136.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Breitel, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 N.E.2d 438, 33 N.Y.2d 590, 347 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-curran-ny-1973.