Selesnick, Matter of
| Citation | 115 Misc.2d 993,454 N.Y.S.2d 656 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Stanley SELESNICK, petitioner. In the Matter of David Axelrod, M.D., as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York in aid of an investigation by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct to determine what action is to be taken as to Dr. Stanley Selesnick concerning his alleged professional medical misconduct. |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1982 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Application by Dr. Stanley Selesnick pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash and vacate a Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon St. Luke's Hospital, Newburgh, New York by the State Commissioner of Health.
Debra Ann Carroll was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital for the delivery of a child whereupon Dr. Stanley Selesnick was called in for consultation and became the assistant attendant at the birth. Mrs. Carroll died after giving birth to her child.
The State Commissioner of Health thereafter instituted an investigation into the cause of the death and the possible medical misconduct of Dr. Selesnick. In furtherance of said investigation the subpoena in question was served upon St. Luke's Hospital seeking medical records of mother and baby including internal review and incident reports, hospital peer review, autopsy reports, expert opinions, etc.
St. Luke's Hospital has not appeared upon this application and has taken no affirmative action against the subpoena.
Petitioner contends that the Commissioner of Health had no authority to issue the subpoena and that the subpoena is overly broad and burdensome.
Respondent contends that petitioner who is not subject to the subpoena has no standing to challenge the same.
The Court will first consider the threshold issue of petitioner's right to maintain this proceeding. The question as to whether a person who is not subpoenaed but who may be affected thereby has the right to quash it is a novel one.
The case of Matter of Roden, 200 Misc. 513, 106 N.Y.S.2d 345 cited by petitioner in support of his right to challenge the subpoena is not in point. Although the moving party was a non-party witness to the proceeding he was the person actually served with the subpoena and as such should have the right to challenge it. In the instant case the subpoena was not served upon the person who now seeks to challenge it.
There is, however, a limited exception to the general rule that the person subpoenaed is the one who must move to quash it. This exception is referred to in 7 Carmody-Wait 2nd § 54:40 p. 765 as follows:
"Sometimes one not named in the subpoena, whose rights are invaded by the service of the subpoena, may move to set aside the process."
The fact that the subpoenaed party may supply information regarding a third-party does not justify the intervention of the third-party. It must be further shown that the third-party has rights which are being violated.
In the case of Beach v. Oil Transfer Corp., 23 Misc.2d 47, 199 N.Y.S.2d 74,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...investigation for such investigations always adversely affect someone and would not be necessary if they didn't.” (Matter of Selesnick, 115 Misc.2d 993, 995, 454 N.Y.S.2d 656 [Sup. Ct., Westchester County 1982] ). Accordingly, the defendant's motions are denied. However, it should be noted ......
-
Oncor Communications, Inc. v. State
..."by the person to whom it is directed or by a person whose property rights or privileges may be violated," (Matter of Selesnick, 115 Misc.2d 993, 995, 454 N.Y.S.2d 656 [Sup.Ct., Westchester County, 1982]. The mere fact that one is a target of investigation or that the information sought may......
-
Buffalo Softball League, Inc., Matter of
...rights or privileges may be violated. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Doe, 759 F.2d 968 (2d Cir.1985); Matter of Selesnick, 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 N.Y.S.2d 656 (1982); People v. Johnson, 103 A.D.2d 754, 477 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2d However, petitioners' supporting papers do not establish that t......
-
38-14 Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs
...application to quash the subpoena, Special Term should have dismissed the application for lack of standing (see Matter of Selesnick 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 N.Y.S.2d 656). ...
-
Table of Cases
...NYS2d 459, 460-61 (1st Dept 1998), §19:51 Matter of Schrutt , 206 AD2d 851, 615 NYS2d 204 (4th Dept 1994), §29:103 Matter of Selesnick , 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 NYS2d 656 (Sup Ct Westchester County), §17:52 Matter of Shafiqur R. Khan v. Dolly , 39 AD3d 649, 833 NYS2d 608 (2d Dept 2007), §11:14......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...directed or a person whose property rights or privileges may be violated has standing to challenge a subpoena. [ Matter of Selesnick , 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 NYS2d 656 (Sup Ct Westchester County) (fact that subpoenaed party may supply information regarding a third party does not justify the i......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...directed or a person whose property rights or privileges may be violated has standing to challenge a subpoena. [ Matter of Selesnick , 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 NYS2d 656 (Sup Ct Westchester County) (fact that subpoenaed party may supply information regarding a third party does not justify the i......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...directed or a person whose property rights or privileges may be violated has standing to challenge a subpoena. [ Matter of Selesnick , 115 Misc.2d 993, 454 NYS2d 656 (Sup Ct Westchester County) (fact that subpoenaed party may supply information regarding a third party does not justify the i......