McGrath v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGrath v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

88 A.D.2d 906, 450 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17238

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 906 (McGrath v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct) 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

McGrath v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, 88 A.D.2d 906, 450 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by petitioner from-an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated November 2, 1981, which denied his motion to vacate a subpoena duces tecum served by the respondent, and granted respondent’s cross motion to compel petitioner to comply with the subpoena. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and cross motion denied. Respondent served a subpoena duces tecum upon petitioner pursuant to section 230 (subd 10, par [k]) of the Public Health Law. It is incumbent upon the issuer of a nonjudicial subpoena duces tecum to come forward with a factual basis which establishes the relevancy of the items sought to the subject matter of the investigation before an individual will be compelled to comply with the subpoena’s mandate (Virag v Hynes, 54 NY2d 437, 442). The affidavit in opposition to the motion to vacate and in support of the cross motion contains no facts whatsoever regarding the nature of petitioner’s alleged professional misconduct. It states only that respondent has received a complaint about petitioner’s using dangerous drugs to treat his patients. The bare statement, without any further description or information, is insufficient to sustain the subpoena (see Matter ofNapatco, Inc. v Lefkowitz, 43 NY2d 884, 885-886; Matter of Murawski fSchachter], 95 Mise 2d 249). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, 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, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated November 2, 1981, which denied his motion to vacate a subpoena duces tecum served by the respondent, and granted respondent’s cross motion to compel petitioner to comply with the subpoena. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and cross motion denied. Respondent served a subpoena duces tecum upon petitioner pursuant to section 230 (subd 10, par [k]) of the Public Health Law. It is incumbent upon the issuer of a nonjudicial subpoena duces tecum to come forward with a factual basis which establishes the relevancy of the items sought to the subject matter of the investigation before an individual will be compelled to comply with the subpoena’s mandate (Virag v Hynes, 54 NY2d 437, 442). The affidavit in opposition to the motion to vacate and in support of the cross motion contains no facts whatsoever regarding the nature of petitioner’s alleged professional misconduct. It states only that respondent has received a complaint about petitioner’s using dangerous drugs to treat his patients. The bare statement, without any further description or information, is insufficient to sustain the subpoena (see Matter ofNapatco, Inc. v Lefkowitz, 43 NY2d 884, 885-886; Matter of Murawski fSchachter], 95 Mise 2d 249). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 906, 450 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgrath-v-state-board-for-professional-medical-conduct-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack