FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 160909/2013 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2013

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 Commission’s authority, and is part of the Executive Branch’s unlawful investigation into the Legislature, in violation of New York’s 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

Floor, New York, New York 10007.
1

See Affirmation of Gabriel M. Nugent, on behalf of Petitioner Hiscock & Barclay, LLP.

1

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

Subpoena’s demands. 9. The Subpoena demands production of voluminous documents, including

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 Commission’s statutory authority; and (e) violates New York’s separation of powers doctrine.

2

11.

The Commission responded with a letter to H&B on November 12, 2013,

declining H&B’s 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:

/s Gabriel M. Nugent Gabriel M. Nugent

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

3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful