People v. Nesci

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nesci

178 Misc. 2d 685, 683 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 600

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 178 Misc. 2d 685 (People v. Nesci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Nesci, 178 Misc. 2d 685, 683 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

[686]*686An order determining a motion to quash a subpoena issued in the course of the prosecution of a criminal action arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702). This rule, however, applies only to the parties to the underlying criminal action. A nonparty to the action may take an appeal since the order is final as to that individual or entity (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85, 111 AD2d 891, lv denied 65 NY2d 606; People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754).

In the case at bar, the appellant is the New York State Police, an agency of the Executive Department of the State (Executive Law § 210). Where a State agency is a party to an action, it is the State which is the real party in interest (Matter of Hongisto v Mercure, 72 AD2d 850; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 126:111, at 595). Thus, in view of the State Police Division’s relationship to the State of New York, appellant is a party to the criminal proceeding and no appeal may be taken from the instant order denying the motion to quash the subpoena (People v Rivera, NYLJ, May 28, 1987, at 12, col 6 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Levitt, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

[686]*686An order determining a motion to quash a subpoena issued in the course of the prosecution of a criminal action arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702). This rule, however, applies only to the parties to the underlying criminal action. A nonparty to the action may take an appeal since the order is final as to that individual or entity (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85, 111 AD2d 891, lv denied 65 NY2d 606; People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754).

In the case at bar, the appellant is the New York State Police, an agency of the Executive Department of the State (Executive Law § 210). Where a State agency is a party to an action, it is the State which is the real party in interest (Matter of Hongisto v Mercure, 72 AD2d 850; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 126:111, at 595). Thus, in view of the State Police Division’s relationship to the State of New York, appellant is a party to the criminal proceeding and no appeal may be taken from the instant order denying the motion to quash the subpoena (People v Rivera, NYLJ, May 28, 1987, at 12, col 6 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Levitt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Misc. 2d 685, 683 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nesci-nyappterm-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack