38-14 Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs
| Decision Date | 16 July 1984 |
| Citation | 103 A.D.2d 804,477 N.Y.S.2d 999 |
| Parties | 38-14 REALTY CORP., Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Ronald E. Sternberg, Pamela Seider Dolgow, Asst. Corp. Counsels, New York City, and Barbara A. Cass of counsel), for appellant.
Fireman & Kramer, Brooklyn (Marvin E. Kramer and Mark S. Schwartz, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and O'CONNOR, WEINSTEIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding to vacate, cancel and set aside a subpoena duces tecum served by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs upon Exxon Corporation, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 1983, as granted the application.
Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and application dismissed.
Petitioner did not have standing to challenge the subpoena served upon Exxon Corporation. Even assuming that petitioner was a party to the contracts required to be produced by the subpoena, that alone would not constitute a sufficient interest in the subpoenaed material to maintain this proceeding. Unlike the third parties in Matter of State of New York Comm. on Governmental Operations of City of N.Y. v. Manhattan Water Works, 10 A.D.2d 306, 199 N.Y.S.2d 120, and Matter of Foster, 139 App.Div. 769, 124 N.Y.S. 667, petitioner herein has no proprietary interest in the subject documents. Furthermore, unlike the situation in Beach v. Oil Transfer Corp., 23 Misc.2d 47, 199 N.Y.S.2d 74, no privileged communications such as those between an attorney and a client are involved at bar. Consequently, instead of granting petitioner's application to quash the subpoena, Special Term should have dismissed the application for lack of standing (see Matter of Selesnick 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 N.Y.S.2d 656).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M&T Bank Corp. v. Moody's Investors Servs., Inc.
... ... , Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.Entered: February 5, 2021DUANE MORRIS LLP, NEW RK CITY (JAMES J. COSTER OF COUNSEL), AND ZDARSKY, ... , 126 A.D.3d 1414, 5 N.Y.S.3d 783 [4th Dept. 2015] ), plaintiff, a financial institution, ... to the nonparty (see American Heritage Realty LLC v. Strathmore Ins. Co. , 101 A.D.3d 1522, ... , 581 N.Y.S.2d 659, 590 N.E.2d 244 [1992] ; 38-14 Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer ... ...
-
Hyatt v. Cal. Franchise Tax Bd.
... ... , Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. March 13, 2013 ... [962 N.Y.S.2d 285] ... privileged communications ( see 3814 Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, ... ...
-
In the Matter of Out–of–state Subpoenas Issued By the N.Y. Counsel For State Franchise Tax Bd. For the Depositions v. For U.S. Philips Corp..
... ... of OUTOFSTATE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY the NEW YORK COUNSEL FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX ... , 84 A.D.3d 1365, 923 N.Y.S.2d 715 [2d Dept.2011] ). The Full Faith and Credit Clause is, ... or a privileged communication ( 3814 Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, ... ...
-
Board of Co-op. Educational Services of Nassau County v. Nassau Boces Cent. Council of Teachers
... ... Seymour H. Kligler, New York City (David R. Kay, New York City, of counsel), ... ...