Legal Opinion
People v. Slochowsky
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 9, 1982PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Gerald Adler, J.
The District Attorney of Kings County, Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, moves this court to quash a subpoena served upon her by the attorneys for the defendants, on the grounds that “the testimony sought is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry before this court and is privileged.”
A motion to quash a subpoena even though made in a criminal proceeding is a “special proceeding * * * on the civil side of a court vested with civil jurisdiction” (Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari, 39 NY2d 314, 317).
Initially this court must determine whether relevancy and privilege are…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. HenrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- People v. GissendannerNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Seelig v. ShepardNew York Supreme Court · 1991
- New York State Commission on Government Integrity v. CongelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. BoudinNew York Supreme Court · 1983