Cappetta v. Santucci
| Decision Date | 13 October 1977 |
| Citation | 369 N.E.2d 1172,399 N.Y.S.2d 638,42 N.Y.2d 1066 |
| Parties | , 369 N.E.2d 1172 In the Matter of Seena CAPPETTA et al., Appellants, v. John J. SANTUCCI, as District Attorney of Queens County, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Melvin Rubin, Huntington Station, for appellants.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. (Jon M. Bevilacqua, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner's challenges to the two subpoenas duces tecum, one addressed to him and the other to his bank, were properly rejected. * As to the former, Supreme Court found that "petitioner is employed by the Board of Education as a municipal servant * * * he is a public servant dealing with public funds, responsible for public records". The Appellate Division found no occasion to disturb this finding, nor do we. Accordingly, the records sought to be produced were those of the board of education, the employing institution, and hence were not petitioner's private property subject to his personal privilege against self incrimination (Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88-90, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678, United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1248).
Additionally, the records sought from petitioner fall within the " required records exception" to the privilege against self incrimination (Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787). Petitioner was required to maintain records with respect to public moneys received and disbursed by him. It is of no significance for present purposes that the obligation of record-keeping was imposed by administrative regulation rather than by State statute.
As to the subpoena addressed to petitioner's bank, it is clear that the records sought are not subject to the constitutional privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures (United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 98 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71). By similar token, inasmuch as the documents are the business records of the bank and not the personal property of petitioner, to require their production by the bank cannot be said to constitute a denial of petitioner's privilege against self incrimination.
Order affirmed.
* Originally a District Attorney's "request" subpoena was served on petitioner, returnable at the District Attorney's office. After the institution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Congregation B'Nai Jonah v. Kuriansky
...(see, id.; see also, United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 444, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71; Matter of Cappetta v. Santucci, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 1067, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Matter of Doe Corp. I v. Blumenkopf, 118 A.D.2d 279, 282, 505 N.Y.S.2d The application to quash the October......
-
People v. Troy
...bank records were illegally seized by the prosecution through the issuance of subpoenas (see, CPL 610.25; Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 1067, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172). Additionally, there is no merit to the contention that the Grand Jury proceedings were rendered defective d......
-
John Doe Corp. I v. Blumenkopf
...in subpoenaing them (see, United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 444, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71; Matter of Capetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 1067, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Matter of Laborers I.U.N.A. Local No. 333 v. New York State Organized Crime Task Force, 81 A.D.2d 1037, 1038, 440 N......
-
Selesnick, Matter of
...directed against his bank. This federal rule has been adopted by New York State in the following cases: Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 795; Cunningham and Kaming, P.C. v. Nadjari, 53 A......