Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank
| Decision Date | 15 June 1976 |
| Citation | 384 N.Y.S.2d 795,53 A.D.2d 542 |
| Parties | Application of Usher SHAPIRO, Petitioner-Appellant, for an Order Quashing a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by Charles J. Hynes, etc., Respondent-Respondent, and The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Elefant, Brooklyn, for petitioner-appellant.
T. J. Bryan, New York City, for respondent-respondent.
Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, LUPIANO and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 9, 1976, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs and without disbursements.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 26, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.
The earlier order, denying an application to quash in toto a subpoena duces tecum issued by a Special Assistant Attorney General in respect of bank records of movant's accounts granted the motion in part to restrict scope of the subpoena. On the basis of additional information supplied to the court, the later order vacated the restriction and restored the full scope of the subpoena as issued. Thus, the appeal from the first order which has been superseded, has become academic, and is dismissed accordingly; the Attorney General has withdrawn his cross-appeal therefrom. The holding of our highest court in United States v. Miller, decided April 21, 1976, 425 U.S. 435, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71, 44 U.S.L.W. p. 4528, is directly in point: '. . . these are the business records of the banks . . .' and appellant '. . . can assert neither ownership nor possession.' (p. 440, 96 S.Ct. p. 1623, 44 U.S.L.W. p. 4529). '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 § contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued.' (p. 444, 96 S.Ct. p. 1624, 44 U.S.L.W. p. 4530). And this appears to us to be so, whether addressed to a suppression motion, as in Miller, or to the quashing of a subpoena, as here.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selesnick, Matter of
...New York State in the following cases: Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 795; Cunningham and Kaming, P.C. v. Nadjari, 53 A.D.2d 520, 384 N.Y.S.2d 383; Matter of Democratic County Committe......
-
People v. Doe
...48 L.Ed.2d 71; Matter of Cappetta v. Santucci, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 399 N.Y.S.2d 1172, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Matter of Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 795 [1st Dept.] ). The rule is the same with respect to telephone records (see People v. DiRaffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234,......
-
AQ Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Levine
...argue that the movants lacked standing to bring motions to quash. As this Court noted in Matter of Shapiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 795 [1st Dept.1976], a depositor has no ownership or other interest in a bank's records of his accounts. Thus, he has no stan......
-
Laborers I. U. N. A. Local No. 333 v. New York State Organized Crime Task Force
...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, 384 N.Y.S.2d 383; Matter of Democratic County Committee of B......