Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN THE MATTER OF SUBPOENA ISSUED BY MORELAND COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE PUBLIC CORRUPTION TO HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP Index No.: __________ I.A.S. PART: JUSTICE PETITION Petitioner, HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, by its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows: 1. This is a petition to quash and for a protective order with respect to the subpoena
duces tecum (Subpoena) issued to Petitioner by the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption (the Commission), which was appointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on July 2, 2013, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law 6 and 63(8). The Subpoena, dated October 16, 2013 and attached as an exhibit to the Affirmation of Gabriel M. Nugent, submitted by Petitioner,1 is unlawful in that it lacks the requisite factual basis, materiality and relevance, demands privileged and confidential materials, and is overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. In addition, the Subpoena exceeds the Commissions authority, and is part of the Executive Branchs unlawful investigation into the Legislature, in violation of New Yorks doctrine of separation of powers. PARTIES 2. Petitioner, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP (Petitioner or H&B), is a limited liability
partnership engaged in the practice of law. H&B received the Subpoena from the Commission purportedly related to the work that a current New York State Assemblyman performs for H&B. 3. Respondent, the Commission, has a business address at 90 Church Street, 15th
See Affirmation of Gabriel M. Nugent, on behalf of Petitioner Hiscock & Barclay, LLP.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. Articles 4, 23, and 31, this Court has jurisdiction over a
special proceeding to quash and for a protective order with respect to an administrative subpoena issued to obtain disclosure from a New York entity. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent and venue is proper in this
Court pursuant to C.P.L.R. 506(b). THE SUBPOENA 6. On October 16, 2013, the Commission served Petitioner with the Subpoena
calling for Petitioner to produce documents to the Commission by October 29, 2013. 7. On October 22, the Commission agreed to extend the deadline to respond to the
Subpoena to November 12, 2013. 8. To this date, Petitioner has not produced any documents in response to the
confidential and privileged documents and communications, the production of which would force H&B and its attorneys to violate their ethical obligations to preserve client confidences, privileged communications, and work-product. 10. On November 8, 2013, in accordance with C.P.L.R. 2304, Petitioner sent a letter
to the Commission requesting that the Commission withdraw the subpoena because, among other reasons, it (a) lacks the requisite factual basis, materiality and relevancy; (b) is overly broad and unduly burdensome; (c) improperly demands privileged and confidential materials; (d) was issued outside the Commissions statutory authority; and (e) violates New Yorks separation of powers doctrine.
11.
declining H&Bs request to withdraw the subpoena. 12. Petitioner has not made a prior application in this Court or any other court relating
to the relief requested by this petition. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that an order be entered pursuant to C.P.L.R. 2304 and 3103 quashing, and issuing a protective order with respect to, the Subpoena issued to Petitioner dated October 16, 2013, and for such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: Syracuse, New York November 22, 2013 HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP
By:
300 South State Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Tel. (315) 425-2836 Fax (315) 703-7361 E-mail gnugent@hblaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner Hiscock & Barclay, LLP