People v. Santos

• Decision Date: 18 December 1984
• Citation: 485 N.Y.S.2d 524,64 N.Y.2d 702,474 N.E.2d 1192
• Parties: , 474 N.E.2d 1192 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Hector SANTOS, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 524

485 N.Y.S.2d 524

64 N.Y.2d 702, 474 N.E.2d 1192

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Hector SANTOS, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 18, 1984.

Mario Merola, Dist. Atty., New York City (Peter D. Coddington, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Michele Maxian and Caesar D. Cirigliano, New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The appeal should be dismissed.

In May 1982, defendant was indicted for the criminal sale and possession of controlled substances. Thereafter, on application by defendant, the Supreme Court issued a subpoena duces tecum seeking routine police department reports concerning the crime with which he was charged. The District Attorney moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that the reports were not discoverable. The court denied the motion to quash but held that the names and addresses of witnesses are not discoverable as a matter of right and are discoverable only upon a clear showing of special circumstances. The People appealed to the Appellate Division from so much of the Supreme Court's order as denied the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.

Defendant cross-appealed from that portion of the court's order which redacted the name of witnesses from the police reports. The Appellate Division, 102 A.D.2d 742, 477 N.Y.S.2d 291, dismissed the cross appeals as nonappealable and cited Matter of Morgenthau v. Hopes, 41 N.Y.2d 1007, 395 N.Y.S.2d 449, 363 N.E.2d 1184, rearg. den. 42 N.Y.2d 825).

As a rule, no appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization (CPL 1.10; Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351; Matter of Ryan 306 N.Y. 11, 114 N.E.2d 183). An order denying or granting a motion to quash a subpoena issued in the course of a criminal investigation, prior to the commencement of a criminal action, may be appealable when issued by a court vested with civil jurisdiction (Matter of Abrams 62 N.Y.2d 183, 476 N.Y.S.2d 494, 465 N.E.2d 1). Such an order arises out of a special proceeding on the civil side of the court (see, e.g., Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d 915). But an order determining a motion to quash a subpoena for the production of police reports, issued in the course of prosecution of a criminal action (CPL 1.20, subd. 16), arises out of a criminal proceeding (CPL 1.20, subd. 18; see Matter of Morgenthau v....