Legal Opinion · Dissent

Landau v. Hynes

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 17, 1979Published

1DissentJones, J.

I am persuaded that the activating letters from the Commissioners of Health and Social Services to the Attorney-General lacked the specificity contemplated by subdivision 3 of section 63 of the Executive Law and accordingly that Deputy Attorney-General Hynes did not have authority to issue the Grand Jury subpoenas which are sought to be quashed in this proceeding;

Subdivision 3, one of the subdivisions of that section under which the Attorney-General may be authorized to investigate and to prosecute, provides:

*139"The attorney-general shall:
"3. Upon request of the governor, comptroller, secretary…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Matter of A'hearn v. Comm. on Unlawful Practice of the Law of the New York County Lawyers'ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. Sigety v. HynesNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. People v. Tru-Sport Publishing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1936
  4. People v. TomaselloNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. Friedman v. Hi-Li Manor Home for AdultsNew York Court of Appeals · 1977

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API