Cunningham v. Nadjari
| Citation | 347 N.E.2d 915,383 N.Y.S.2d 590,39 N.Y.2d 314 |
| Parties | , 347 N.E.2d 915 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. |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1976 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
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.
Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs.
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 App.Div. 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 precedents represent a formidable line of authority, however asymmetrical may appear to be the support for the rule they express and apply. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the legislative history of the Criminal Procedure Law that there was any intention to override these precedents. The arguments based on CPL depend exclusively on the definitional arrangement in that statute, a definitional arrangement more precise, although not significantly different from that in the predecessor statute, the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of this issue (compare, e.g., CPL 1.20, subd. 18 with Code Crim.Proc., §§ 5, 515, 962). Consequently, despite respondent's persuasive practical arguments addressed to the dilatory purpose that the rule of the Doe case (supra) serves those reluctant to testify in legitimate criminal investigations, the court is not now ready to overrule precedents resting upon a history of 40 years.
Turning to the merits of the appeal, the several issues raised by appellants are largely premature, as the Appellate Division concluded, so long as there is a valid Grand Jury in existence and valid subpoenas issued pursuant to orders of the Governor creating the Extraordinary Term of the Supreme Court and making requisitions on the Attorney-General (see Executive Order Nos. 56, 62, 9 NYCRR 1.56, 1.62). Such validity, the court concludes, is present because of the executive findings and acts which are largely beyond review in the courts, insofar as any of the multiple grounds urged by appellants are concerned (see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pelchat
...F.Supp. 505, affd. 550 F.2d 1224; People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295, 385 N.E.2d 1224; Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 318, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915). This conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed because the evidence before the Grand Ju......
-
In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc.
...even those issued in criminal investigations if prior to the commencement of a criminal action (Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 317, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915 [1976] ). Such motions, we have reasoned, 55 N.Y.S.3d 722are not made in a criminal proceeding. Rather, they ......
-
381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. v. N.Y. Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office
...even those issued in criminal investigations if prior to the commencement of a criminal action (Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 317, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915 [1976] ). Such motions, we have reasoned, 78 N.E.3d 16755 N.Y.S.3d 722are not made in a criminal proceeding. ......
-
Johnson v. Pataki
...grant of discretionary authority, his actions are largely beyond judicial review (see, e.g., Matter of Cunningham Page 981 v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 317-318, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915; Gaynor v. Rockefeller, 15 N.Y.2d 120, 131, 256 N.Y.S.2d 584, 204 N.E.2d 627; Matter of Nistal v. H......
-
A Practice Commentary To Judiciary Law Article 19
...e.g., N.Y. Judiciary Law ßß 752, 756 (Consol. 2003). [14] Santangelo v. People, 381 N.Y.S.2d 472 (1976). [15] Cunningham v. Nadjari, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590 (1976). [16] People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 769 (1998); see also Matter of Abe A, 56 N.Y.2d 288, 293, 452 N.Y.S.2d 6, 8 (1982). [17] See Pe......