Case ID: ad_215/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of David Hirshfield, as Commissioner of Accounts of the City of New York, Respondent, for a Warrant of Attachment against Nicholas Smith, a Witness, and Charles L. Craig, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Intervenor, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of David Hirshfield, as Commissioner of Accounts of the City of New York, Respondent, for a Warrant of Attachment against Albert V. Sielke, a Witness, and Charles L. Craig, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Intervenor, Appellants.
    First Department,
    December 18, 1925.
    Witnesses — attachment to compel attendance before commissioner of accounts of city of New York — matters pending before commissioner do not relate to accounts and methods of department of finance — attachment vacated.
    An attachment to compel the attendance of witnesses who were subpoenaed to appear before the commissioner of accounts of the city of New York is vacated, since it appears that the matters pending before the commissioner were not subjects concerning accounts and methods of the department of finance.
    Appeal in the first above-entitled proceeding by Nicholas Smith and another, and in the second above-entitled proceeding by Albert V. Sielke and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term in each proceeding and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of November, 1925, denying motions by the appellants to vacate an order of attachment and all writs of attachment and subpoenas issued in relation to the investigation of the matters referred to.
    The orders of attachment were granted in proceedings alleged to have been taken pursuant to section 119 of the Greater New York charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, as amd. by Laws of 1916, chap. 517) and section 406 et seq. of the Civil Practice Act.
    
      Charles L. Craig, for the appellants.
    
      George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel [John F. O’Brien of counsel; John Lehman and Bussell Lord Tarbox with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We consider that the witnesses subpoenaed in these proceedings were not properly required to attend before the commissioner, because the .matters pending before him concerning which an inquiry was projected were not subjects having to do with the accounts and methods of the department of finance, and that the warrants of attachment directing the sheriff to produce them should have been vacated, under the authority of Matter of Hirshfield v. Craig (239 N. Y. 98).

The orders should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions granted.

• Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Merrell, McAvoy and Burr, JJ.

In each case: Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.