Case Name: 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
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-12-18
Citations: 215 A.D. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
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.
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.

Opinion:
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.