Weintraub v. Fraiman
| Decision Date | 14 May 1969 |
| Citation | 249 N.E.2d 762,24 N.Y.2d 918,301 N.Y.S.2d 983 |
| Parties | , 249 N.E.2d 762 Application of Alfred WEINTRAUB, Appellant, v. Arnold Guy FRAIMAN, as Commissioner of Investigation of the City of New York, Respondent, for an Order, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 30 A.D.2d 784, 291 N.Y.S.2d 438.
Moser, Henkin & Alper, New York City (Alexander S. Moser, Norman E. Henkin, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent-appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, James J. Nespole, Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
The petitioner, an attorney, applied for an order vacating, quashing and setting aside subpoena issued by New York City Commissioner of Investigation.
The Supreme Court at Special Term, Arthur Markewich, J., entered an order in New York County which granted motion to quash subpoena duces tecum but required petitioner to appear and testify with relation to his bank account and to identify deposits and withdrawals from a certain date with duty of disclosing only so much of petitioner's clients' names as would enable Commissioner of Investigation to ascertain whether transactions related to the subject matter of his investigation which involved purported payment by former City Marshal for reappointment, and the petitioner appealed.
The Appellate Division, modified order by providing that effectiveness of subpoena would be confined to a date commencing four months after date of Special Term's order and determined that Commissioner of Investigation had right to investigate matters pertaining to appointments by Mayor of the City of New York including office of City Marshal and that the inquisitiorial powers of Commissioner reached anyone, even though unconnected with city employment, when grounds were present to sustain belief that such person has information relative to subject matter of investigation, and petitioner appealed.
On appeal, petitioner claimed that the Commissioner of Investigation did not have power to investigate City Marshal since his authority was not conferred by City Charter or by letter from presiding justices of the Appellate Division to the former Mayor.
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G.
... ... den., 395 U.S. 959, 89 S.Ct. 2099, 23 L.Ed.2d 745; Matter of Weintraub v. Fraiman, 30 A.D.2d 784, 291 N.Y.S.2d 438, affd., 24 N.Y.2d 918, 301 N.Y.S.2d 983, 249 N.E.2d 762; Matter of Narcotic Addiction Control Comm. v ... ...
-
Parkhouse v. Stringer
... ... The latter subdivision has not been read as a limitation on the witnesses DOI may subpoena. Matter of Weintraub v. Fraiman, 30 A.D.2d 784, 291 N.Y.S.2d 438 [1st Dept.1968], aff'd. 24 N.Y.2d 918, 301 N.Y.S.2d 983, 249 N.E.2d 762 [1969] holds that "inquisitorial" ... ...
- People v. Genovese
-
Ruskin v. Weintraub
... ... PER CURIAM ... Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 12, 1970, denying petitioner's motion to punish respondent for contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum, issued by him, as modified by this Court in Weintraub v. Fraiman, 30 A.D.2d 784, 291 N.Y.S.2d 438, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 918, 301 N.Y.S.2d 983, 249 N.E.2d 762, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, the motion to punish respondent [36 A.D.2d 804] for contempt granted, and by reason of and in punishment for such ... ...