Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
New York Court of Appeals, 1955

INTER-CITY ASSOCS., INC. v. Doe

INTER-CITY ASSOCS., INC. v. Doe
New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 10, 1955 · Conway
308 N.Y. 1044; 127 N.E.2d 872

INTER-CITY ASSOCS., INC. v. Doe

Opinion

308 N.Y. 1044 (1955)

In the Matter of the Application of Inter-City Associates, Inc., Appellant, to Quash Subpœna Duces Tecum in a Proceeding Entitled The People of the State of New York
v.
John Doe. The People of the State of New York, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued June 6, 1955.
Decided June 10, 1955

Samuel L. Meltz for appellant.

T. Vincent Quinn, District Attorney (Lawrence Peirez and Eugene S. McQuade of counsel), for respondent.

CONWAY, Ch. J., DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE, JJ., concur.

*1044Per Curiam.

Inasmuch as this application to quash a subpœna duces tecum was made in the Supreme Court, it is a civil proceeding, and is accordingly appealable (People v. "Doe" [Byk], 247 App. Div. 324, affd. 272 N.Y. 473; Matter of Ryan [Hogan], 306 N.Y. 11; Civ. Prac. Act, § 588, subd. 1, par. [a]).

The Appellate Division has dismissed the appeal, but in its opinion stated that if it "had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal *1045 on the merits, it would affirm the order". We agree that the Special Term order should be affirmed (Matter of Manning v. Valente, 272 App. Div. 358, affd. 297 N.Y. 681; Matter of Mohawk Overall Co., 210 N.Y. 474, motion to dismiss granted 235 U. S. 685).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with directions to Special Term to fix a new return date.

Ordered accordingly.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑