39 N.Y.2d 314, Cunningham v. Nadjari

Citation:39 N.Y.2d 314, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590
Party Name:Cunningham v. Nadjari
Case Date:April 01, 1976
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 314

39 N.Y.2d 314

383 N.Y.S.2d 590

In the Matter of Patrick J. CUNNINGHAM, Appellant,

v.

Maurice H. NADJARI, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Jerry L. CRISPINO, Appellant,

v.

Maurice H. NADJARI, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Gerald V. ESPOSITO, Appellant,

v.

Maurice H. NADJARI, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Paul VICTOR, Appellant,

v.

Maurice H. NADJARI, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeals

April 1, 1976.

Gregory J. Perrin, New York City, for Patrick J. cunningham.

Hal Meyerson, New York City, for Jerry L. Crispino.

Max Wild, New York City, for Gerald V. Esposito.

Charles Haydon, New York City, for Paul Victor.

Maurice H. Nadjari, Deputy Atty. Gen., Special State Prosecutor, pro se (Bennett L. Gershman, Allen G. Swan and Walter F. Bottger, New York City, of counsel), for Maurice H. Nadjari, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs.

[383 N.Y.S.2d 591] Preliminary objection to the direct appealability of the orders is raised by respondents. It is true that the direct appealability of orders granting or denying motions to quash subpoenas in criminal investigations and actions has a peculiar analytical basis. However, since 1936 in a series of cases beginning with People v. Doe, 272 N.Y. 473, 3 N.E.2d 875, affg., 247 A.D. 324, 286 N.Y.S. 343, this court has allowed the direct appealability of orders in such proceedings. It was reasoned that they were final orders in special proceedings on the civil side of a court vested with civil jurisdiction. The court did so as recently as in Matter of Boikess v. Aspland, 24 N.Y.2d 136, 138--139, 299 N.Y.S.2d 163, 164--165, 247 N.E.2d 135, 136--137; see Matter of Santangello v. People, 38 N.Y.2d 536, 539, 381 N.Y.S.2d 472, 473, 344 N.E.2d 404, 405, discussing the rule as extant. Since the jurisdiction of an Extraordinary Term is coextensive with that of an ordinary term of Supreme Court possessing both criminal and civil jurisdiction, the same rule obtains in the instant case (see Matter of Reynolds v. Cropsey, 241 N.Y. 389, 395--396, 150 N.E. 303, 305; Executive Order No. 56, 9 NYCRR 1.56). Consequently, on a basis of Stare decisis these...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP