People v. Fleschner
| Decision Date | 04 April 1979 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Marc FLESCHNER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Barry A. Schwartz and Charles Testagrossa, Jr., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for appellant.
Stephen P. Scaring, Mineola, for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and DAMIANI, SHAPIRO and MARGETT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal, as limited by the People's brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 17, 1978, as, in part, denied the People's motion to quash certain subpoenas.
Order modified, on the law, by (1) deleting therefrom the provision which denied the motion as to John J. Santucci, District Attorney, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to quash as to him, and (2) deleting therefrom the provision which denied the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County, and substituting therefor provisions (a) granting the motion as to items one, two and three and (b) granting the motion as to item four except insofar as said item seeks material with respect to defendant Fleschner. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The material sought pursuant to item four of the subpoena duces tecum concerning defendant Fleschner shall be turned over to Criminal Term for an In camera determination as to which items are relevant and should, insofar as found relevant, be made available to defense counsel.
District Attorney Santucci submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he does not have a fixed policy against making recommendations of lifetime probation pursuant to Penal Law, § 65.00 (subd. 1, par. (a) (iii)). Furthermore, on argument of this appeal an Assistant District Attorney stated that on at least two occasions Mr. Santucci had recommended lifetime probation. The foregoing obviates the need for any testimony by Mr. Santucci and the subpoena requiring his presence as a witness must be quashed.
Moreover, counsel for the defendant stated that the agreement concerning a recommendation of lifetime probation, upon which the defendant relied, was made with the office of the former District Attorney. Therefore, the relevance of any testimony by Mr. Santucci as to his practices would be remote.
In making our determination we have not considered the merits of the proceeding before Madam Justice RUBIN and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alston v. Phillips
... ... The first of these robberies took place early in the morning of March 15, 1997. There were only three people working in the store at the time: a cashier named Latrice, a Stock clerk named Leo, and the Pharmacy's co-manager, Mona Dutt. Dutt was in an office ... ...
-
People v. Slochowsky
...finds that a claim of irrelevancy cannot be used on a motion to quash a subpoena. This court is aware of the case of People v. Fleschner, 69 A.D.2d 827, 415 N.Y.S.2d 66 in which the Appellate Division suppressed on the grounds of remoteness a subpoena ad testificandum for the District Attor......
-
Mason v. Scully
... ... See People v. Mason, 170 A.D.2d 464, 565 N.Y.S.2d 552 (2d Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 77 N.Y.2d 997, 571 N.Y.S.2d 923, 575 N.E.2d 409 (1991). The court ... ...