![]() The Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law under which the Grand Jury and the District Attorney operate are in pari materia in that they both relate to the criminal branch of the law, but the CPLR and its predecessors *216 are not generally so related to either the Penal Law or the CPL ( id., § 221), although the CPLR does apply to motions to quash subpoenas issued in furtherance of a criminal investigation ( see, Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari, 39 NY2d 314). While not dispositive, there is a general rule of statutory construction that earlier statutes are properly considered as illuminating the intent of the Legislature in passing later acts in other words, a particular statute is construed with reference to earlier statutes in pari materia (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 222). ![]() Thus, although the subpoena in issue does not constitute a seizure, assuming arguendo that one were issued with the notice required by CPL 610.25 (2), it would still not run afoul of Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 12.03. Indeed, in Matter of Hynes v Moskowitz ( supra, at 395), in distinguishing between a search warrant and a subpoena duces tecum, the Court held that “ 'a subpoena to appear before a grand jury is not a ”seizure“ in the sense, even though that summons may be inconvenient or burdensome.' ” (Brackets in original). ![]() Thus, although the District Attorney argues that the Grand Jury has the right to possession of the subpoenaed paintings pursuant to CPL 610.25 (1), it would appear that in a case like this, where there is no evidence in the record of any notice in the subpoena served on the Museum that the two paintings will be sought to be retained in custody, Matter of Heisler ( supra) is still good law and the subpoena duces tecum sought to be quashed does not authorize or call for a seizure in any meaning of the word.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |