Opinion
Decided July 2, 1987
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Burton B. Roberts, J.
Peter J. Driscoll and James C. Sherwood for appellants.
Edward J. Kuriansky, Deputy Attorney-General (Robert Dublirer of counsel), respondent pro se.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Petitioners, two New Jersey corporations doing business in New York and the president of both corporations, have moved to quash subpoenas requiring them to produce records kept in New Jersey for inspection by a New York County Grand Jury investigating complaints of Medicaid fraud. The sole issue on appeal is whether the issuance of compulsory process pursuant to CPL 640.10, the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Proceedings, is the exclusive means by which an out-of-State corporation doing business in New York may be compelled to produce out-of-State documents at a criminal proceeding within New York. We hold that it is not.
Pursuant to CPL 610.10, a person "within the state" may be required to attend a criminal proceeding and to produce specified physical evidence by the issuance and service upon him of a subpoena. Because the corporate petitioners at whom respondent's subpoenas were directed were doing business in New York within the meaning of CPLR 301, they were within the State for jurisdictional purposes (see, Laufer v Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d 305, 309-310; Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259, 267-268) and, therefore, subject to subpoenas served pursuant to CPL 610.40. Personal service upon the principal of the corporate petitioners constituted satisfactory service (see, CPLR 2303, 311). Thus, the lower courts correctly required petitioners to produce all documents within their control, regardless of location (see, Matter of Standard Fruit S.S. Co. v Waterfront Commn., 43 N.Y.2d 11, 15-16). To the extent that Matter of Brennick v Hynes ( 68 A.D.2d 980, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 706) reaches a contrary result, it is not to be followed.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.