People ex rel. Santucci v. Cappetta
| Decision Date | 17 March 1977 |
| Citation | 89 Misc.2d 943,392 N.Y.S.2d 996 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. John J. SANTUCCI, D.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Seena CAPPETTA and Robert Cappetta, Petitioners-Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Melvin Rubin, New York City, for petitioners.
Jon M. Bevilacqua, Kew Gardens, for respondent.
Petitioners Robert Cappetta and his wife Seena Cappetta move to quash a subpoena served on the Chase Manhattan Bank.
The subpoena in question was served on this institution by the Office of the Queens District Attorney, which seeks to examine the Cappettas' bank account for the period 1974 to and including 1976.
Petitioners contend that their personal bank records are privileged and any disclosure would constitute a violation of both Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Further, it is alleged that since the subpoena is returnable to the Office of the District Attorney, this document would constitute an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The People uphold the validity of the subpoena and maintain that the petitioners lack standing to intervene in this action, citing United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71).
A review of the Miller case shows a fact pattern similar to the case at bar, namely, the legality of a bank subpoena which sought an individual's bank record. The Court in that case made two important determinations:
1. A depositor waives all 'expectations of privacy' when he surrenders possession of his original checks and deposit slips to the bank.
2. Bank records are not 'private papers'. They are 'business records of the bank'.
These holdings are dispositive of the issues in this case. There can be no unlawful search and seizure of petitioners' property because a bank depositor possesses no Fourth Amendment rights in connection with that property. This is so even if the records seized might furnish evidence of a criminal nature. As the Miller Court pointed out in this connection:
'Since no Fourth Amendment interests of the depositor are implicated here, this case is governed by the general rule that the issuance of a subpoena to a third party to obtain the records of that party does not violate the rights of a defendant, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S., (21) at 53, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 39 L.Ed.2d 812; Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 537, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971) (Douglas J., concurring).
As for a violation of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laborers I. U. N. A. Local No. 333 v. New York State Organized Crime Task Force
...L.Ed.2d 71; Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172, affg. 57 A.D.2d 596, 393 N.Y.S.2d 554, affg. 89 Misc.2d 943, 392 N.Y.S.2d 996; Matter of Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 795; Cunningham & Kaming v. Nadjari, 53 A.D.2d 520,......