Weil v. New York State Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weil v. New York State Commission

283 A.D. 808, 128 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 808 (Weil v. New York State Commission) 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

Weil v. New York State Commission, 283 A.D. 808, 128 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In these proceedings appellants Weil, Weisman and Levy, applied at Special Term for an order limiting subpoenas duces tecum similar in form, which had been served on them by respondent; appellants Dowling and Johnson so moved with respect to like subpoenas which had been served on them; and appellant De Meo moved for an order quashing or modifying a similar subpoena served on him. All said applications were heard together and denied. The petitioners appeal from the orders entered thereon. Orders modified on the law so as to provide as follows: (A) with respect to the subpoena served upon appellant Dowling: (1) the date “ January 1, 1945”, shall be substituted for “ January 1, 1940”, in items 1, 2 and 4 of said subpoena; and (2) item 3 of said subpoena shall be limited to transactions from January 1, 1945, to date; and (B) with respect to the subpoenas served upon all the other appellants, items 3 of said subpoenas shall be limited to transactions from January 1, 1940, to date. As so modified, the orders are affirmed, without costs. It is not claimed that appellant Dowling had any connection with the subject of the inquiry (harness racing) prior to the year 1945; or that any of the other appellants were so connected prior to 1940. Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur. [205 Misc. 614.]

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

In these proceedings appellants Weil, Weisman and Levy, applied at Special Term for an order limiting subpoenas duces tecum similar in form, which had been served on them by respondent; appellants Dowling and Johnson so moved with respect to like subpoenas which had been served on them; and appellant De Meo moved for an order quashing or modifying a similar subpoena served on him. All said applications were heard together and denied. The petitioners appeal from the orders entered thereon. Orders modified on the law so as to provide as follows: (A) with respect to the subpoena served upon appellant Dowling: (1) the date “ January 1, 1945”, shall be substituted for “ January 1, 1940”, in items 1, 2 and 4 of said subpoena; and (2) item 3 of said subpoena shall be limited to transactions from January 1, 1945, to date; and (B) with respect to the subpoenas served upon all the other appellants, items 3 of said subpoenas shall be limited to transactions from January 1, 1940, to date. As so modified, the orders are affirmed, without costs. It is not claimed that appellant Dowling had any connection with the subject of the inquiry (harness racing) prior to the year 1945; or that any of the other appellants were so connected prior to 1940. Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur. [205 Misc. 614.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 808, 128 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weil-v-new-york-state-commission-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack