Home/New York Court of Appeals/Napatco, Inc. v. Lefkowitz

Napatco, Inc. v. Lefkowitz

374 N.E.2d 366, 43 N.Y.2d 884, 403 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1807
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 9, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 366 (Napatco, Inc. v. Lefkowitz) 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
Napatco, Inc. v. Lefkowitz, 374 N.E.2d 366, 43 N.Y.2d 884, 403 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1807 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Attorney-General is granted broad authority to conduct investigations, on the complaint of others or on his own information, with respect to illegal business practices and the unlawful practice of law. In furtherance thereof he is authorized to issue subpoenas under subdivision 12 of section 63 of the Executive Law. We have held, however, that there must be some factual basis shown to support the subpoena (Myerson v Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co., 33 NY2d 250, 258). It is not fatal in this instance that there is no evidence in the record of third-party complaints; it is fatal that there is no evidence of any sufficient factual predicate to support the subpoena. All that is tendered is a piece of advertising copy and a single-form letter of petitioner, the latter apparently sent to lawyers engaged in general practice. The texts of both the advertisement and the form letter are too equivocal; read as the Attorney-General would read them they can be said to constitute an offer to engage in activities prohibited by subdivision 1 of section 495 of the Judiciary Law. On the basis of an arbitrary resolution of the equivocality in a manner adverse to petitioner and favorable to him, the Attorney-General asserts that he has authority to pursue his suspicions. The minimal, equivocal documentary proof in this case with no [886]*886other proof of any sort to support suspicion of illegality is not sufficient to sustain the subpoena, and it therefore should be quashed.

On our disposition of the appeal on this basis we do not reach or consider petitioner’s contentions that this subpoena duces tecum is impermissibly overbroad.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Schneiderman v. Rillen
33 Misc. 3d 788 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Roemer v. Cuomo
67 A.D.3d 1169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Spitzer
9 Misc. 3d 626 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
New York City Department of Investigation v. Passannante
148 A.D.2d 101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Hertz Corp. v. Attorney-General of New York
136 Misc. 2d 420 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)
Naples v. Whelan
100 A.D.2d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Levin v. Murawski
449 N.E.2d 730 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
McGrath v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct
88 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Lefkowitz v. Napatco, Inc.
415 N.E.2d 916 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
New York State Division of Human Rights v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
74 A.D.2d 16 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Temporary Commission of Investigation v. French
68 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 N.E.2d 366, 43 N.Y.2d 884, 403 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napatco-inc-v-lefkowitz-ny-1978.