Pennock v. Lane
| Decision Date | 13 March 1963 |
| Citation | 238 N.Y.S.2d 588,18 A.D.2d 1043 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John H. PENNOCK, Albany County Attorney, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Myles J. LANE et al., individually and as members of the Temporary State Commission of Investigation of the State of New York Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl A. Vergari, New York City, Nathan Skolnik and Arnold M. Weiss, New York City, for appellant.
John H. Pennock, Co. Atty., Albany, (Harold E. Blodgett, Schenectady, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.
Appeal by the Temporary State Commission of Investigation of the State of New York and its constituent members from an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, which quashed a subpoena directed to the County Attorney of Albany County in his official capacity requiring him to appear and to testify as a witness at a private hearing to be held in connection with an investigation in progress pursuant to the provisions of chapter 989 of the Laws of 1958. The subject under investigation is stated to be: 'The conduct of public officers and public employees and matters concerning the public peace, public safety and public justice relating to the purchase and use of equipment, goods, services, supplies, foodstuffs and property by and for the public institutions, agencies, departments and other units and subdivisions of the government of the County of Albany.'
The grounds assigned by Special Term for granting the motion are: (1) that no claim is made that respondent has or has had anything to do with county purchases; (2) that the subject of the investigation stated in the subpoena differs from the purpose disclosed in the answering affidavit of counsel for the commission; and (3) that the inquiry proposed would probe into confidential communications between the witness and county officials and employees represented by him upon prior hearings before the commission.
The answer to the first ground articulated in the decision below is that an allegation of respondent's familiarity with practices and procedures within the compass of the subpoena is uncontroverted. Were this not so, the quashing of the subpoena in advance of the hearing would not be justified. (Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N.Y. 374, 176 N.E. 537; Matter of La Belle Creole Intern. S. A. v. Attorney-General of State of N. Y., 10 N.Y.2d 192, 196, 219 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 176 N.E.2d 705, 707, motion for reargument denied 10 N.Y.2d 1011, 224 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 180 N.E.2d 272.)
The statement of the subject of the investigation as it appears in the subpoena complies with the statutory requirement (Civil Rights Law, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Slochowsky
... ... (Matter of Pennock v. Lane, 18 A.D.2d 1043, 1044, 238 N.Y.S.2d 588; Matter of Bonanno v. Ryan, 18 Misc.2d 711, 190 N.Y.S.2d 508, affd. 9 A.D.2d 605, 191 N.Y.S.2d 356) ... ...
-
Beach v. Shanley
... ... 381-382, 176 N.E. 537; Matter of Hirshfield v. Craig, 239 N.Y. 98, 118, 145 N.E. 816; Matter of Pennock v. Lane, 18 A.D.2d 1043, 1044, 238 N.Y.S.2d 588; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 2304.13, p. 23-73). In that event, litigation must ... ...
-
Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v. Colon
... ... "Only in this context can an intelligent appraisal be made as to the legitimacy of the claim of privilege" (Matter 145 A.D.3d 1159of Pennock v. Lane, 18 A.D.2d 1043, 1044, 238 N.Y.S.2d 588 [1963] ; see Desai v. Blue Shield of Northeastern N.Y., 128 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, 513 N.Y.S.2d 562 ... ...
-
Temporary State Commission on Living Costs and Economy v. Bergman
... ... 16 A.D.2d 1022, 230 N.Y.S.2d 97, aff'd 12 N.Y.2d 708, 233 N.Y.S.2d 762, 186 N.E.2d 121; Pennock v. Lane, 18 A.D.2d 1043, 238 N.Y.S.2d 588) ... However, a finding of jurisdictional power to conduct this investigation does not ... ...