In the Matter of Newsday, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 561 (NY 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
In the Matter of Newsday, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 561 (NY 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
82 citation events (82 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York County District Attorney's Office (ny, 2017-04-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York County District Attorney's Office (2017)
“The majority does suggest that Facebook could attempt to compel disclosure of the affidavit, pointing to Matter of Newsday, Inc. ( 3 NY3d 651 [2004]), a short memorandum in which we suggested an appellant denied the opportunity to appeal an interlocutory order in a criminal proceeding could either bring a Freedom of Information Law request or a civil proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.”
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York County District Attorney's Office (4×)
NY · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
By contrast, a motion to quash a subpoena issued prior to the commencement of a criminal action, even if related to a criminal investigation, “is civil by nature” (Matter of Abrams [John Anonymous], 62 NY2d 183, 192 [1984]; see Matter of Newsday, Inc., 3 NY3d 651, 652 [2004]; People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]). 3 Thus, an order resolving a motion to quash such a subpoena is a final and appealable order in a special proceeding that is “not subject to the rule restricting direct appellate review of orders in criminal proceedings” (Matter of Abrams, 62 NY2d at 192 ; see Matter of N…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Canning v. Revoir
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although "[t]he appealability or nonappealability of an issue is not dispositive" ( Matter of Holtzman v Goldman , 71 NY2d 564, 570 [1988]), when considering the gravity of the harm within the backdrop of the significant historical context for the reporter's privilege and the legislative history for the New York Shield Law, coupled with the inadequacy of petitioner's remedies on appeal or in a separate proceeding, we find that a writ of prohibition is appropriately sought by petitioner under these facts and circumstances ( see People v Juarez , 31 NY3d at 1191 n 5; Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Feople of State of New York v. Weis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defendant’s additional argument that the People did not afford him a reasonable time between the CPL 190.50 notice date and the date of the scheduled presentation of the indictment was not raised before County Court on the motion to dismiss and, therefore, is not preserved for review (see People v Brown, 23 AD3d 703 , 705 n [2005], Iv denied 6 NY3d 810 [2006]; see also People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 874 [2004], Iv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hunter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: compare · confidence low
Inasmuch as the primary issue at trial was identification and the court did not expressly proscribe the jury’s use of the prior conviction to identify defendant as the likely perpetrator here, we cannot say that the other proof of his guilt is so overwhelming as to render the error harmless (see People v Simmons, 29 AD3d 1219, 1221 [2006]; People v Reilly, 19 AD3d 736, 737-738 [2005]; People v Whitted, supra at 635 ; compare People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004] [where the defendant put the element of intent in issue and the evidence of an uncharged crime was t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Newsday, Inc., Appellant. Robert D. Morgenthau, as District Attorney of New York County, Intervenor-Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 1, 2004.
816 N.E.2d 561
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Levine Sullivan Koch & SGhulz LLP, New York City (David A. Schulz, Gayle C. Sproul and Alia L. Smith of counsel), for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Michael Morgan of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*652] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed, without costs, on the ground that no statutory authority exists for our review of Supreme Court’s order in this criminal proceeding (see Matter of Manners [Christopher L.], 74 NY2d 734 [1989]).

Newsday’s application to intervene and obtain access to records supporting issuance of a search warrant was an application “involving a criminal investigation and the proceeding in which the order was issued was therefore a criminal proceeding” (Matter of Alphonso C. [Morgenthau], 38 NY2d 923, 924-925 [1976], citing CPL 1.20 [18] [b]; Matter of Santangello v People, 38 NY2d 536 [1976]). * As it was issued in a criminal proceeding, Supreme Court’s order was not appealable to the Appellate Division under CPL article 450, nor is the Appellate Division order appealable to this Court by permission pursuant to CPL 460.20 because it is not an appealable order as defined by CPL 450.90. Remedies available to Newsday could have been via a Freedom of Information Law request (Public Officers Law § 87) or a civil proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 at the trial court level (see e.g. Matter of Gannett Co. v De Pasquale, 43 NY2d 370 [1977]; Matter of Associated Press v Bell, 70 NY2d 32 [1987]), from which an appeal to this Court might ultimately have been taken.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, in a memorandum.

*

By contrast, we note that “the direct appealability of orders granting or denying motions to quash subpoenas in criminal investigations and actions has a peculiar analytical basis” (Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari, 39 NY2d 314, 317 [1976]). Indeed, since 1936, in a line of cases originating with People v Doe (272 NY 473 [1936]), this Court has permitted direct appeal of those orders on the ground that “they were final orders in special proceedings on the civil side of a court vested with civil jurisdiction” (Cunningham, 39 NY2d at 317, citing Matter of Boikess v Aspland, 24 NY2d 136, 138-139 [1969]). In Cunningham, however, we recognized that “on a basis of stare decisis these precedents represent a formidable line of authority, however asymmetrical may appear to be the support for the rule they express and apply” (39 NY2d at 317; see also Matter of Abrams [John Anonymous], 62 NY2d 183, 192 [1984]).