Case Name: In the Matter of Harold J. Getting, Doing Business as Midtown Detective and Investigation Bureau, Appellant, v. Caroline K. Simon, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1963-10-31
Citations: 13 N.Y.2d 964
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Harold J. Getting, Doing Business as Midtown Detective and Investigation Bureau, Appellant, v. Caroline K. Simon, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 964–966

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Harold J. Getting, Doing Business as Midtown Detective and Investigation Bureau, Appellant, v. Caroline K. Simon, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Respondent.
Argued October 3, 1963;
decided October 31, 1963.
Edward Hager and Forman Bulloch for appellant.
Louis J. Lefhowits, Attorney-General (Samuel A. BLirshowits of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The paper delivered by respondent to appellant was not a subpoena duces tecum such as is described in subdivision 2 of section 73 of the General Business Law but a mere request issued pursuant to subdivision 1 of that section. Such a request is not subject to a motion to vacate, quash or modify. The propriety of a licensee's failure to produce records so requested is reviewable only if and after action is taken by respondent affecting the license (General Business Law, § 79; cf. Matter of Union Ins. Agency v. Holz, 1 A D 2d 945, app. dsmd. and mot. for lv. to app. den. 1 N Y 2d 644, 921, app. dsmd. 353 U. S. 932).
Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Bubke, Foster and Scileppi. Judge Van Voobhis dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion.