Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Vincent P. Nesci, Jr., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-07-07
Citations: 178 Misc. 2d 685
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Vincent P. Nesci, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 178
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
[683 NYS2d 375]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Vincent P. Nesci, Jr., Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
July 7, 1998
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City (Michael S. Belohlavek and Katharine Demgen of counsel), for appellant. Nesci, Keane, Pierkarski, Keogh & Corrigan, White Plains ('Vincent P. Nesci of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Appeal unanimously dismissed.
An order determining a motion to quash a subpoena issued in the course of the prosecution of a criminal action arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702). This rule, however, applies only to the parties to the underlying criminal action. A nonparty to the action may take an appeal since the order is final as to that individual or entity (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85, 111 AD2d 891, lv denied 65 NY2d 606; People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754).
In the case at bar, the appellant is the New York State Police, an agency of the Executive Department of the State (Executive Law § 210). Where a State agency is a party to an action, it is the State which is the real party in interest (Matter of Hongisto v Mercure, 72 AD2d 850; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 126:111, at 595). Thus, in view of the State Police Division's relationship to the State of New York, appellant is a party to the criminal proceeding and no appeal may be taken from the instant order denying the motion to quash the subpoena (People v Rivera, NYLJ, May 28, 1987, at 12, col 6 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).
DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Levitt, JJ., concur.