From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter, Dearstyne v. Rensselaer Dist. Atty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 10, 1999

Appeals (1) from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), entered December 15, 1997, which denied petitioner's motions pursuant to CPLR 2307 and 2302 PLR N.Y.CPLR (b) for the issuance of judicial subpoenas duces tecum, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 6, 1998, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Frank W. Dearstyne Jr., Dannemora, appellant in person.

Kenneth R. Bruno, District Attorney (Bruce E. Knoll of counsel), Troy, for Rensselaer County District Attorney, respondent.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), Albany, for New York State Police, respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR., PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioner, proceeding pro se, moved for the issuance of judicial subpoenas duces tecum directing respondents to turn over papers and records petitioner believed relevant to his previous conviction for various crimes (see, People v. Dearstyne, 230 A.D.2d 953,lv denied, 89 N.Y.2d 921). He sought this information for use in support of a CPL 440.10 motion which he contemplated bringing. County Court denied the motion. We affirm.

Except in narrowly defined circumstances, not present here, for a judicial subpoena to issue there must be a pending underlying action or proceeding (see, Matter of Plater v. Cortland Mem. Hosp., 256 A.D.2d 678, 678-679; 681 N.Y.S.2d 139, 140; see also, Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, C2301:4, at 236). As there was none at the time petitioner sought to compel production of the documents, petitioner was not entitled to the relief requested. Moreover, a review of the record confirms County Court's conclusion that petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating how the information inquired after was material and relevant (see, People v. Carpenter, 240 A.D.2d 863, 864,lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 902). Regarding petitioner's motion for reconsideration, also denied by County Court, that was actually a motion for reargument and hence the denial is not appealable (see,Guntert v. Daniels, 240 A.D.2d 789, 791).

ORDERED that the order entered December 15, 1997 is affirmed, without costs.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered March 6, 1998 is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter, Dearstyne v. Rensselaer Dist. Atty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter, Dearstyne v. Rensselaer Dist. Atty

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANK W. DEARSTYNE JR., Appellant, v. RENSSELAER COUNTY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 10, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 628

Citing Cases

Dearstyne v. Mazzuca

The Justice also served on the Appellate Division panel that affirmed the County Court's denial of…

People v. Dearstyne

A more detailed recitation of the facts regarding defendant's underlying conviction and appeals can be found…