Judicial Inquiry, In re

• Decision Date: 06 October 1958
• Citation: 179 N.Y.S.2d 301,6 A.D.2d 1045
• Parties: . C. Anonymous, appellant; Denis M. Hurley, counsel to the Judicial Inquiry, respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 301

179 N.Y.S.2d 301

6 A.D.2d 1045

In the Matter of the JUDICIAL INQUIRY pursuant to the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the Second Department. C. Anonymous, appellant; Denis M. Hurley, counsel to the Judicial Inquiry, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Oct. 6, 1958.

Henry A. Lowenberg, New York City, for appellant.

Michael Caputo, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and MURPHY, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal from an order of an additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, appointed by this court under an order directing a judicial inquiry and investigation with respect to the improper practices and abuses by attorneys in Kings County, and by persons acting in concert with them. The order appealed from denies an oral motion made by a witness, the appellant herein, to have his attorney present in the hearing room to represent him actively while on the witness stand.

Appeal dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies to this court except by statutory authority (Fischer v. Briante, 6 A.D.2d 814, 175 N.Y.S.2d 301). Certain appeals are authorized from orders made in civil actions (Civil Practice Act, § 609), special proceedings (Civil Practice Act, § 631) and in criminal actions (Code Criminal Procedure, §§ 517, 518). The judicial investigation in which the order was made is neither an action, civil or criminal, nor a special proceeding (cf. People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 60 A.L.R. 851; Brooklyn Bar Ass'n, 223 App.Div. 149, 151, 227 N.Y.S. 666, 668). In the absence of statutory authority, the order is not appealable. Furthermore, if it be assumed that the order was made in an action or special proceeding, the appeal is, in effect, from a ruling made during a trial or hearing, from which there is no appeal, even though the determination made is embodied in a written order (Scognamiglio v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 6 A.D.2d 722, 175 N.Y.S.2d 115). We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order if the appeal were not dismissed. Cf. Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 790, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535, motion for leave to appeal denied 4 N.Y.2d 676, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1025; Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 792, 170 N.Y.S.2d 538; Anonymous No. 6 v. Arkwright, 6 A.D.2d 719, 176 N.Y.S.2d 227; Anonymous No. 7 v. Arkwright, 6 A.D.2d 719, 176 N.Y.S.2d 228.