Lynch v. Office of Labor Relations

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynch v. Office of Labor Relations

21 A.D.3d 831, 802 N.Y.S.2d 13

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 831 (Lynch v. Office of Labor Relations) 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

Lynch v. Office of Labor Relations, 21 A.D.3d 831, 802 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered August 6, 2004, which dismissed this proceeding to compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum served in February 2004, without prejudice to reinstatement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court erred in concluding that our prior decision in Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York (293 AD2d 253 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]) deprived it of jurisdiction under CPLR 2308 (b) to compel compliance with petitioner’s nonjudicial subpoenas. However, the petition was properly dismissed since the dispute was not ripe for adjudication. In a proper exercise of discretion, the court recognized that no judicial determination as to relevance of subpoenaed material could be made until the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining framed the issues to be considered in this proceeding, which challenges the Police Depart[832]*832ment’s designation of detective specialists. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered August 6, 2004, which dismissed this proceeding to compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum served in February 2004, without prejudice to reinstatement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court erred in concluding that our prior decision in Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York (293 AD2d 253 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]) deprived it of jurisdiction under CPLR 2308 (b) to compel compliance with petitioner’s nonjudicial subpoenas. However, the petition was properly dismissed since the dispute was not ripe for adjudication. In a proper exercise of discretion, the court recognized that no judicial determination as to relevance of subpoenaed material could be made until the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining framed the issues to be considered in this proceeding, which challenges the Police Depart[832]*832ment’s designation of detective specialists. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 831, 802 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-office-of-labor-relations-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack