Opinion
January 13, 1976
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1975, denying petitioners' application to quash grand jury subpoenas duces tecum issued to banking institutions and requiring the production, among other things, of various corporate records and checking accounts and personal checking and saving accounts of individual officers, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This matter and Matter of L S Hosp. Institutional Supplies Co. v Hynes ( 51 A.D.2d 515), Matter of Heller v Hynes and Matter of Fishoff v Hynes ( 51 A.D.2d 515) present for review common questions concerning the legitimacy of the investigation of nursing homes being conducted by the State of New York. There being no claim that the Grand Jury lacks de facto organization and existence, the petitioners lack standing to challenge its jurisdiction. (Blair v United States, 250 U.S. 273; People v Doe [Byk], 247 App. Div. 324, affd without opn 272 N.Y. 473.) The Deputy Attorney-General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury (Steinman v Nadjari, 49 A.D.2d 456) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. (People v Tomasello, 21 N.Y.2d 143; People v Yonkers Contr. Co. 24 A.D.2d 641, affd as to that aspect, 17 N.Y.2d 322, 338.) The powers conferred on the Attorney-General's office by subdivision 3 of section 63 Exec. of the Executive Law were properly activated by the requests from the State Commissioners of Health and of Social Services. We have heretofore, in Matter of Maison Co. v Hynes ( 50 A.D.2d 13) considered various of the contentions now raised by petitioners-appellants with respect to a similar Grand Jury subpoena duces tecum, and rejected the contentions. (See, also Matter of Sigety v Hynes, 38 N.Y.2d 260.)
Concur — Stevens, P.J. Kupferman, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ. [ 84 Misc.2d 431.]