Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. George Edward Sillifant, Appellant, against Sheriff of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-07-08
Citations: 6 N.Y.2d 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. George Edward Sillifant, Appellant, against Sheriff of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 487–496

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. George Edward Sillifant, Appellant, against Sheriff of the City of New York, Respondent.
Argued March 11, 1959;
decided July 8, 1959.
William W. Kleinman, Lawrence Peirez said Henry W. Schober for appellant.
I. The Grand Jury has no power to compel a witness to complete and answer a questionnaire in addition to giving oral testimony. (Matter of Mullen v. Halleran, 177 Misc. 734; Matter of Bernoff v. Amoroso, 188 Misc. 845; People ex rel. Drake v. Andrews, 197 N. Y. 53; Matter of Spector v. Allen, 281 N. Y. 251; People v. Stern, 3 N Y 2d 658; City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp., 280 App. Div. 623,305 N. Y. 369; Fromme v. Gray, 14 Misc. 592; People v. Finkelstein, 202 Misc. 1080; Matter of Steingut v. Imrie, 270 App. Div. 34; Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244; Matter of Cole [Reiss], 208 Misc. 697; Matter of Slipyan [Shapiro], 208 Misc. 515.) II. Filling out the questionnaires as directed herein does not constitute the furnishing of legal documentary evidence nor is it a deposition as provided in section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. HI. The questions contained in the questionnaire are not a subject in dispute at this time.
Lester G. Knopping for Civil Service Forum, amicus curiae, in support of appellant’s position.
Since an affidavit read to the Grand Jury outside of the situs of the Grand Jury room does not constitute legal evidence receivable by a Grand Jury, and, since such body has been precluded from convening at a place other than the Grand Jury room, it follows that a witness legally cannot be compelled to fill out a financial questionnaire at a place other than the situs of the Grand Jury room. (People v. Doe, 247 App. Div. 324, 272 N. Y. 473; People v. Glen, 173 N. Y. 395; Matter of Mullen v. Halleran, 177 Misc. 734; Matter of Spector v. Allen, 281 N. Y. 251; People v. Pisanti, 179 Misc. 308; Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359; People v. Albero, 119 Misc. 339; People v. Tatum, 60 Misc. 311; Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244; People ex rel. Drake v. Andrews, 134 App. Div. 32, 196 N. Y. 538,136 App. Div. 907, 197 N. Y. 53; Matter of Slipyan [Shapiro], 208 Misc. 515.)
Edward S. Silver, District Attorney (Aaron E. Koota and William Sonenshine of counsel), for respondent.
The Grand Jury, investigating whether employees of the Department of Buildings of the City of New York have committed crimes, possessed the power to direct relator to accept the financial questionnaire, make written answers thereon to the questions, submit the completed form to the Grand Jury at a subsequent session and testify regarding said answers. (People v. Stern, 3 N Y 2d 658; People v. Connolly, 253 N. Y. 330; Matter of Davies, 168 N. Y. 89; Matter of Spencer, 137 App. Div. 330; First M. E. Church v. Dixon, 178 Ill. 260; Matter of Board of Comrs. of Cook County, 146 Minn. 103; Skelly Oil Co. v. Pruitt & McCrory, 74 Okla. 232; People v. Doe, 247 App. Div. 324; Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273; People v. Workman, 308 N. Y. 668; People v. O’Brien, 281 App. Div. 982, 305 N. Y. 915; People v. Vigorito, 281 App. Div. 1043; People ex rel. Valiente v. Dyckman, 24 How. Prac. 222; Allen v. State, 183 Md. 603.)

Opinion:
Desmond, J.
We see in this Grand Jury questionnaire procedure no violation of section 248 or section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or of any other law. Eelator, an inspector employed by the New York City Department of Buildings, was subpoenaed before the Grand Jury, appeared there and executed a waiver of immunity. After being sworn, he was handed a questionnaire consisting of four pages and was directed by the Grand Jury to take it away with him, fill out the answers in writing and later to return to the Grand Jury to swear that the answers were true and to be questioned further as to those answers if the Grand Jury should so desire. Relator, on advice of his counsel and on the ground that the Grand Jury had no such power, refused to do any of this. Later, he refused to comply with a County Court order of compulsion and was found guilty of criminal contempt (Judiciary Law, § 750, subd. 3).
No one doubts that this Grand Jury, investigating alleged bribery and extortion involving public employees, could compel this relator to answer orally the same questions which are printed in the questionnaire (Code Crim. Pro., § 245, 253; see People v. Connolly, 253 N. Y. 330). The questions are simple ones asking for details of the income of relator and members of his household, the names of banks in which he and his family have accounts, the existence of safe-deposit boxes, life insurance and other policies, stock brokerage accounts and of his charge accounts, if any. The questionnaire calls also for approximate figures of living and personal expenses and for relator's financial balance sheet. No special skill or assistance is necessary for the answering of such questions but they are the sort that a person would not ordinarily be able to answer from unaided memory. Thus it was reasonable and sensible to give relator an opportunity to fill out the answers at a time and place convenient to him after checking his records, etc.
If relator had been called before the Grand Jury and had been questioned orally on these same matters, he undoubtedly would have said that he could not answer from memory. It would then have been appropriate for the Grand Jury to direct him to go to his home or office, assemble the information and come back and testify to it:' The same thing is being done here except that he is directed to write out the information on a prescribed form.
Of course, in some other instances oppressive use of the questionnaire method may be attempted but the courts can deal with that situation when it comes (see Matter of Cole [Reiss], 208 Misc. 697).