L & S Hospital & Institutional Supplies Co., Inc. v. Hynes

• Decision Date: 13 January 1976
• Citation: 378 N.Y.S.2d 78,51 A.D.2d 515
• Parties: Application L & S HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL SUPPLIES CO., INC., et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For an Order Quashing Subpoenas Duces Tecum Issued by Charles J. HYNES, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 78

378 N.Y.S.2d 78

51 A.D.2d 515

Application L & S HOSPITAL & INSTITUTIONAL SUPPLIES CO INC., et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For an Order Quashing Subpoenas Duces Tecum Issued by Charles J. HYNES, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Jan. 13, 1976.

M. Grossman, New York City, for petitioners-appellants.

H. Hoffman, New York City, for respondents-respondents.

Before STEVENS, P.J., and KUPFERMAN, LUPIANO, LANE and NUNEZ, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1975, 84 Misc.2d 431, 375 N.Y.S.2d 934, denying petitioners' application to quash grand jury subpoenas duces tecum issued to banking institutions and requiring the production, among other things, of various corporate records and checking accounts and personal checking and saving accounts of individual officers, unanimously affirmed without costs and without disbursements.

This matter and Matter of L & S Hospital & Institutional Supplies Co. v. Hynes, 51 A.D.2d 515, 377 N.Y.S.2d 1004, Matter of Heller v. Hynes and Matter of Fishoff v. Hynes, 51 A.D.2d 515, 378 N.Y.S.2d 639 present for review common questions concerning the legitimacy of the investigation of nursing homes being conducted by the State of New York. There being no claim that the Grand Jury lacks de facto organization and existence, the petitioners lack standing to challenge its jurisdiction. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 39 S.Ct. 468, 63 L.Ed. 979; People v. Doe (Byk), 247 App.Div. 324, 286 N.Y.S. 343 (2d Dept. 1936), Aff'd without op., 272 N.Y. 473. The Deputy Attorney General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury, Steinman v. Nadjari, 49 A.D.2d 456, 375 N.Y.S.2d 622 (2nd Dept. 1975) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. People v. Tomasello, 21 N.Y.2d 143, 287 N.Y.S.2d 1, 234 N.E.2d 190; People v. Yonkers Contr. Co., 24 A.D.2d 641, 262 N.Y.S.2d 298, Aff'd as to that aspect, 17 N.Y.2d 322, 338, 270 N.Y.S.2d 745, 755, 217 N.E.2d 829, 836. The powers conferred on the Attorney General's office by Executive Law, § 63(3) were properly activated by the requests from the State Commissioners of Health and of Social Services.

We have heretofore, in Matter of Maison & Co. v. Hynes, 50 A.D.2d 13, 375 N.Y.S.2d 878, considered various of the contentions now raised by petitioners-appellants with respect to a similar grand jury subpoena duces tecum, and rejected the contentions. See also Matter of Sigety v. Hynes, 38...