With respect to the second argument of the defendants, this court approved the substitution of the Attorney General as the attorney for the Commission in place of Mr. Miccio very early in the litigation. In this court's view, the proper named party in litigation involving the validity of a subpoena issued by a state agency is the agency itself ( see, Matter of Goverl Consulting Corp. v. New York Temporary State Commn. on Lobbying, 113 AD2d 611, revd on dissenting op 68 NY2d 839), and that appears to be the rule even when the subpoenas are issued by the Attorney General at the request of the state agency ( see, Matter of New York Republican State Comm. v. New York State Commn. on Govt. Integrity, 138 Misc 2d 790, affd 140 AD2d 1014). Absent circumstances not present here, section 63 of the Executive Law requires that an action to enforce a subpoena issued by a state agency must be pursued with the Attorney General as the attorney of record for the state agency.
With respect to the second argument of the defendants, this court approved the substitution of the Attorney General as the attorney for the Commission in place of Mr. Miccio very early in the litigation. In this court's view, the proper named party in litigation involving the validity of a subpoena issued by a state agency is the agency itself (see, Matter of Goverl Consulting Corp. v New York Temporary State Commn. on Lobbying, 113 AD2d 611 [1986], revd on dissenting op 68 NY2d 839 [1986]), and that appears to be the rule even when the subpoenas are issued by the Attorney General at the request of the state agency (see, Matter of New York Republican State Comm. v New York State Commn. on Govt. Integrity, 138 Misc 2d 790 [1988], affd 140 AD2d 1014 [1988]). Absent circumstances not present here, section 63 of the Executive Law requires that an action to enforce a subpoena issued by a state agency must be pursued with the Attorney General as the attorney of record for the state agency.
With respect to the second argument of the defendants, this court approved the substitution of the Attorney General as the attorney for the Commission in place of Mr. Miccio very early in the litigation. In this court's view, the proper named party in litigation involving the validity of a subpoena issued by a state agency is the agency itself ( see, Matter of Goverl Consulting Corp. v. New York Temporary State Commn. on Lobbying, 113 AD2d 611, revd on dissenting op 68 NY2d 839), and that appears to be the rule even when the subpoenas are issued by the Attorney General at the request of the state agency ( see, Matter of New York Republican State Comm. v. New York State Commn. on Govt. Integrity, 138 Misc 2d 790, affd 140 AD2d 1014). Absent circumstances not present here, section 63 of the Executive Law requires that an action to enforce a subpoena issued by a state agency must be pursued with the Attorney General as the attorney of record for the state agency.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (John Q. Driscoll, O. Peter Sherwood and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent. Order reversed, with costs, and order of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division ( 113 A.D.2d 611, 614-615). Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, "[a]n application to quash a subpoena should be granted only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry" ( Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327, 331-332 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Succinctly stated, "[t]here must be authority, relevancy, and some basis for inquisitorial action" ( Matter of A'Hearn v Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law of N.Y. County Lawyers' Assn., 23 NY2d 916, 918, cert denied 395 US 959; accord Matter of New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct v Doe, 61 NY2d 56, 60; Matter of Goverl Consulting Corp. v New York Temporary State Commn. on Lobbying, 113 AD2d 611, 614 [1986, Mahoney, P.J., dissenting], revd on dissenting op of Mahoney, P.J., 68 NY2d 839). Here, respondent has the requisite legal authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas ( see Legislative Law ยง 1-d [c] [2]) and the information obtained in the course of respondent's initial investigation provided an adequate basis for respondent to inquire about possible violations of the Lobbying Act ( cf. Matter of Goverl Consulting Corp. v New York Temp. State Commn. on Lobbying, supra at 614 [Mahoney, P.J., dissenting]; New York Temporary State Commn. on Lobbying v Simmons, 4 Misc 3d 749, 754). Finally, we cannot say that the information sought is "utterly irrelevant" to such inquiry ( Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, supra at 332).