Opinion
2003-09292.
Decided May 24, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash or limit a grand jury subpoena duces tecum, the petitioners appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated September 22, 2003, which denied the application.
Kenneth J. Weinstein, Garden City, N.Y. (Judah Serfaty of counsel), for appellants.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Robin A. Forshaw and Laurie M. Israel of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, under the circumstances, compliance with the subpoena would not violate their State constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination ( see Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88, 101; People v. Doe, 59 N.Y.2d 655; see also Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Dec. 14, 1984, Y., M.D., P.C. v. Kuriansky, 69 N.Y.2d 232, 242, cert denied 482 U.S. 928; Henry v. Lewis, 102 A.D.2d 430, 433), or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures ( see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 N.Y.2d 307, 315-317, cert denied 488 U.S. 966; Matter of Hynes v. Moskowitz, 44 N.Y.2d 383, 394-395). Moreover, under the circumstances, requiring the appellants to comply with the subpoena would not cause them to violate the attorney-client privilege ( see Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 69-71).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.