Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Nadjari
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 1, 1976PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Per curiam
Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs.
*317Preliminary objection to the direct appealability of the orders is raised by respondents. It is true that the direct appealability of orders granting or denying motions to quash subpoenas in criminal investigations and actions has a peculiar analytical basis. However, since 1936 in a series of cases beginning with People v Doe (272 NY 473, affg 247 App Div 324), this court has allowed the direct appealability of orders in such proceedings. It was reasoned that they were final orders in special proceedings on the civil side of a court…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Santangello v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. DoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- People Ex Rel. Saranac Land & Timber Co. v. Extraordinary Special & Trial Term of the Supreme CourtNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Matter of Reynolds v. CropseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- People v. KramerNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Lefkowitz v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- People v. PelchatNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. DoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- People v. TylerNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Gunning v. CoddNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.