Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
186380609 Hiscock and Barclay

186380609 Hiscock and Barclay

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,675|Likes:
Published by Nick Reisman

More info:

Published by: Nick Reisman on Nov 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK COUNTYOFNEWYORK 
IN THE MATTER OF SUBPOENA ISSUED BYMORELAND COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATEPUBLIC CORRUPTION TO HISCOCK &BARCLAY, LLPIndex No.: __________ I.A.S. PART:JUSTICE
PETITION
Petitioner, HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, by its undersigned attorneys, alleges asfollows: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 PublicCorruption (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 andattached as an exhibit to the Affirmation of Gabriel M. Nugent, submitted by Petitioner,
1
isunlawful in that it lacks the requisite factual basis, materiality and relevance, demands privilegedand confidential materials, and is overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. In addition,the Subpoena exceeds the Commission’s authority, and is part of the Executive Branch’sunlawful investigation into the Legislature, in violation of New York’s doctrine of separation of  powers.
PARTIES
2. Petitioner, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP (“Petitioneror “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, 15thFloor, New York, New York 10007.
1
See
 Affirmation of Gabriel M. Nugent, on behalf of Petitioner Hiscock & Barclay, LLP.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2013
INDEX NO. 160909/2013NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2013
 
2
JURISDICTIONANDVENUE
4. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. Articles 4, 23, and 31, this Court has jurisdiction over aspecial proceeding to quash and for a protective order with respect to an administrative subpoenaissued to obtain disclosure from a New York entity.5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent and venue is proper in thisCourt pursuant to C.P.L.R.§ 506(b).
THESUBPOENA
6. On October 16, 2013, the Commission served Petitioner with the Subpoenacalling 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 theSubpoena to November 12, 2013.8. To this date, Petitioner has not produced any documents in response to theSubpoena’s demands.9. The Subpoena demands production of voluminous documents, includingconfidential and privileged documents and communications, the production of which wouldforce 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 andunduly burdensome; (c) improperly demands privileged and confidential materials; (d) wasissued outside the Commission’s statutory authority; and (e) violates New York’s separation of  powers doctrine.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->