Lennon v Cuomo

Lennon v Cuomo 2012 NY Slip Op 00715 Decided on February 2, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 2, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
6714N 651794/10

[*1]David P. Lennon, et al., Petitioners-Appellants,

v

Andrew M. Cuomo, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent-Respondent.




David P. Lennon, New York, appellant pro se.
Lennon & Klein, P.C., New York (David P. Lennon of
counsel), for National Magazine Services, Inc. and Subscription
Billing, LLC, appellants.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Laura R.
Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 22, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash, fix conditions and/or modify subpoenas duces tecum issued by respondent, except as to demand number 14, and granted respondent's motion to compel compliance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's issuance of subpoenas in connection with an investigation into complaints from consumers and publishers alleging fraudulent and deceptive practices in petitioner magazine subscription agents' issuance of notices for the renewal of magazine subscriptions was within his broad authority (see Executive Law § 63[12]; General Business Law § 349; Matter of American Dental Coop. v Attorney General of State of N.Y., 127 AD2d 274, 280 [1987]). The information sought "bears a reasonable relationship to the subject matter under investigation and the public interest to be served" (American Dental Coop., 127 AD2d at 280).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2012

CLERK