Saratoga Harness Racing Ass'n v. Monaghan
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtIsadoee Bookstein, J.
Petitioner moves to quash a subpeena duces tecum issued by respondents.
The subpoena is directed to the petitioner, a corporate entity. It does not require the presence to testify of any specified officer or director of petitioner, although it requires the presence of petitioner, “as a witness to testify and give evidence in an inquiry into the following matters: ”
The space in the subpeena for stating the nature of the inquiry and the matters to be inquired into is left totally blank. Thus there is no identification or specification of any inquiry of any nature.
The subpeena would ordinarily be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carlisle v. BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Dawn Operators, Inc. v. LyonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- In re EllisNew York Supreme Court · 1941
- In re the Estate of EbbetsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
3Cited by15 opinions
- People v. Coleman, New York County Courts1973
- Cataldo v. County of MonroeNew York Supreme Court · 1963
- People v. PriceNew York Supreme Court · 1979
- In re Remy Sportswear, Inc.New York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1959
- Amalgamated Union v. LevineNew York Supreme Court · 1961
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.