Ryan v. Lefkowitz
| Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
| Parties | , 224 N.E.2d 721 In the Matter of James A. RYAN, Appellant, v. Louis J. LEFKOWITZ, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 26 A.D. 604, 271 N.Y.S.2d 353.
Andrew M. Pinckney, Albany, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Barry J. Lipson, Samuel A. Hirschowitz and George C. Mantzoros, New York City, of counsel), respondent pro se.
Petitioner, who was the purchasing agent of Albany County, filed an application to quash a subpoena issued by the Attorney-General and served on the petitioner pursuant to Section 343 of the General Business Law (Donnelly Act), Consol.Laws, c. 20.
The subpoena directed the petitioner to appear at the New York City office of the Attorney-General and to testify what he might know in regard to matters relating to the practices of the milk industry and others in unlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the State of any lawful business, trade, or occupation, in the manufacture, production, transportation, marketing or sale of any article or commodity of common use or of any service. The Attorney-General alleged in opposition to application to quash the subpoena that he had received a report from the New York State Commission of Investigation, dated May, 1964 and entitled 'An Investigation of Purchasing Practices and Procedures of Albany County,' which contained information of identical bids and other indicia of monopolistic practices in the procurement of various products, and that an investigation was then initiated pursuant to the Donnelly Act and witnesses and documents were examined, and that, since the matter was called to the attention of the Attorney-General by the Commission, he would be derelict in the discharge of his statutory duty if he failed to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner alleged in support of the application to quash the subpoena that the Attorney-General was not conducting a bona fide investigation under the Donnelly Act, and that the petitioner possessed no information which was relevant or material to the alleged investigation, and that he had testified on numerous occasions before the Commission concerning the milk industry and the receipt of identical bids in the office of Albany County purchasing agent and had submitted to the Commission many documents concerning the subjects, and that the Attorney-General had all of the testimony in his possession and had examined the documents, and that the information sought to be obtained from him was historical in nature rather than current.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County, Harold E. Koreman, J., entered an order granting an application to quash the subpoena and held that the Attorney-General had failed to allege facts to establish the materiality and relevancy of the proposed examination of the petitioner.
The Appellate Division entered an order which reversed, on the law and the facts, the order of the Special Term, denied the application to quash the subpoena, and directed the petitioner to appear and testify pursuant to the subpoena, and held that there was a presumption that the Attorney-General was acting in good faith and found that there was no merit to any of the contentions of the petitioner.
The petitioner appealed to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams
... ... 299 N.Y. 634, 86 N.E.2d 509). In defending his inquiry, the Attorney-General enjoys a presumption that he is acting in good faith (Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 26 A.D.2d 604, 271 N.Y.S.2d 353, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 977, 278 N.Y.S.2d 214, 224 N.E.2d 721) and must show only that the materials sought ... ...
-
Levin v. Murawski
... ... v. Lefkowitz, 43 N.Y.2d 884, 403 N.Y.S.2d 468, 374 N.E.2d 366 [subpoena quashed where issued on basis of advertisement and form solicitation letter]; Matter of ... so minimal that the courts, upon finding authority in the agency, have presumed good faith (see, e.g., Matter of Nicholson, supra; Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 26 A.D.2d 604, 271 N.Y.S.2d 353, affd 18 N.Y.2d 977, 278 N.Y.S.2d 214, 224 N.E.2d 721; Matter of Amos Post, Inc. v. Attorney-General ... ...
-
A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law of New York County Lawyers' Ass'n
... ... for rearg. den. 10 N.Y.2d 1011, 224 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 180 N.E.2d 272; and see Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 26 A.D.2d 604, 271 N.Y.S.2d 353, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 977, 278 N.Y.S.2d 214, 224 N.E.2d 721; Matter of Dawn Operators v. Lyon, 283 App.Div ... ...
-
Carvel Corp. v. Lefkowitz
... ... Hynes, 38 N.Y.2d 260, 379 N.Y.S.2d 724, 342 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Greenthal v. Lefkowitz, 32 N.Y.2d 457, 346 N.Y.S.2d 234, 299 N.E.2d 657; Matter of Hartsdale Canine Cemetery, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 548, 322 N.Y.S.2d 330 aff'd. 29 N.Y.2d 702, 325 N.Y.S.2d 656, 275 N.E.2d 26; Matter of Ryan v. Lefkowitz, 26 A.D.2d 604, 271 N.Y.S.2d 353 aff'd. 18 N.Y.2d 977, 278 N.Y.S.2d 214, 224 N.E.2d 721; Matter of LaBelle Creole International, S. A. v. Attorney General, 10 N.Y.2d 192, 219 N.Y.S.2d 1, 176 N.E.2d 705; Matter of Attorney General (American Research Council), 10 N.Y.2d 108, 217 N.Y.S.2d ... ...