Levin v. Murawski
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentSimons, J.
I would deny petitioners’ motions to quash and grant respondents’ cross motions to compel compliance with the subpoenas in these proceedings.
A motion to quash or compel compliance with an office subpoena issued by an administrative agency “raises only the issues of the authority of the investigating body and whether the inquiry falls within the scope of that authority.” “To sustain the subpoenas, the [agency] need only make a preliminary showing that the information sought is reasonably related to a proper subject of inquiry” (Matter of Nicholson v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 50 NY2d…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- People v. DardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Myerson v. Lentini Brothers Moving & Storage Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Nicholson v. State Commission on Judicial ConductNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Carlisle v. BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.