green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.1 score
“bank records, although they may reflect transactions between the bank and its customers, belong to the bank... cannot preclude their production”
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Medequa LLC v. O'Neill & Partners LLC
bank records, although they may reflect transactions between the bank and its customers, belong to the bank... cannot preclude their production
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Delitta
As "it is a settled principle that a bank customer 'has no proprietary or possessory interests in bank records' and hence 'cannot preclude their production"' (Matter of Congregation B 'Nai Jonah v Kuriansky, 172 AD2d 35, 37 [3d Dept 1991], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 895 [1992], quoting People v Doe, 96 AD2d 1018, 1019 [1st Dept 1983]); see United States v Miller, 425 US 435 (1976); 6 People v Cappetta, 42 NY2d 1066, 1067 [1977]; People v Adeniran, 116 AD3d 706 , 706 [2d Dept 2014], Iv. denied 24 NY3d 1081 [2014]; People v Crispino, 298 AD2d 220, 221 [1st Dept 2002], Iv. denied 99 NY2d 627 [2003]…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lomma
Matter of John Doe Corp. I v Blumenkopf, 118 AD2d 279 [3d Dept 1986] [petitioner corporations had no standing to move to quash grand jury subpoena duces tecum issued by State Organized Crime Task Force to third-party bank for petitioners’ bank records]; People v Doe, 96 AD2d 1018, 1019 [1st Dept 1983] [holding that a natural person has no standing to move to quash a grand jury subpoena for his personal banking records in a criminal case; “(b)ank records, although they may reflect transactions between the bank and its customers, belong to the bank.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Weiss
Hence, he cannot preclude their production * * * The rule is the same with respect to telephone records'" [People v Doe, supra, at 1019 (emphasis added)].) The telephone company, thus, had the ability to preclude production of the documents via a motion to quash, but no interest in doing so.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
M. W. Zack Metal Company
v.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
v.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 20, 1983.
Published
— Application for a writ of mandamus, for a stay, and for other relief, denied in its entirety, the cross motion granted and the petition dismissed. All respondents submitting briefs shall recover of petitioner one bill of $75 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Asch and Milonas, JJ.