Hynes v. Sigety
| Decision Date | 05 January 1978 |
| Citation | 60 A.D.2d 808,401 N.Y.S.2d 749 |
| Parties | Application of Charles J. HYNES, etc., Petitioner-Respondent, for an order compelling Charles E. SIGETY d/b/a Florence Nightingale Nursing Home, Respondent-Appellant, to comply with a subpoena, etc. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. E. Ruck, Brooklyn, petitioner-respondent. M. S. Gould, New York City, respondent-appellant. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (McQuillan, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1977, affirmed on the opinion of McQuillan, J. at Trial Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. All concur except Kupferman, J. P., who dissents in the following memorandum..
Inasmuch as the respondent-appellant had a right legitimately to question the powers of the Deputy Attorney-General to issue subpoenas under Executive Law § 63(8), and the matter was not entirely free from doubt, see Matter of Sigety v. Hynes, 38 N.Y.2d 260, 379 N.Y.S.2d 724, 342 N.E.2d 518, reversing 49 A.D.2d 700, 373 N.Y.S. 848 and affirming 49 A.D.2d 616, 370 N.Y.S.2d 669, the only question we have is whether the respondent-appellant was being contumacious in refusing to produce the records for 1970-71. If there is any doubt, the penalty imposed under CPLR § 2308 of committing him to jail, is a severe one. The petitioner proved only possession of the records at the end of 1974. The respondent-appellant produced five witnesses to explain why the records were not currently available. I cannot myself come to a definitive conclusion as to whether they really are in existence. Under the circumstances, the determination really depends on where the burden lies, and this proceeding, while civil, being akin to criminal in all but name, the determination should be reversed.
KUPFERMAN, J. P., and SILVERMAN, LANE and MARKEWICH, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sigety v. Abrams
... Page 969 ... 632 F.2d 969 ... Charles E. SIGETY, Petitioner-Appellee, ... Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, ... Charles Hynes, Deputy Attorney General of the State of New ... York (Special Prosecutor), and Edward A. Pichler, Sheriff of ... the City of New York, Respondents-Appellants ... No. 1153, Docket 80-2044 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Second Circuit ... Argued May 20, 1980 ... Decided Sept ... ...
-
Sigety v. Abrams
... 492 F. Supp. 1123 ... Charles E. SIGETY, Petitioner, ... Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Charles Hynes, Deputy Attorney General of the State of New York (Special Prosecutor), and Edward A. Pichler, Sheriff of the City of New York, Respondents ... No. 79 Civ. 3455 ... United States District Court, S. D. New York ... February 15, 1980. 492 F. Supp. 1124 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL ... ...
-
People v. Di Maria
... ... (See Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 317, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915 Matter of Hynes v. Sigety, 60 A.D.2d 808, 401 N.Y.S.2d 749 app. dsmd. 43 N.Y.2d 947, 403 N.Y.S.2d 896, 374 N.E.2d 1247; Matter of Hynes v. Sloma, 59 A.D.2d 1014, ... ...
-
Hynes v. Hartman
... ... One bookkeeper had died and an accountant was living in retirement outside the country. The respondent did offer to reconstruct the records, as well as possible, for the petitioner ... Relying upon Matter of Sigety v. Hynes, N.Y.L.J., 8/5/77, p. 13, col. l, aff'd. 60 A.D.2d 808, 401 N.Y.S.2d 749, app.dism. 43 N.Y.2d 947, 403 N.Y.S.2d 896, 374 N.E.2d 1247), the hearing Court found the respondent in civil contempt (CPLR § 2308; Judiciary Law § 753). In rejecting the respondent's contention that the books and ... ...