Opinion
2001-11180
Submitted April 8, 2002.
May 8, 2002.
In a proceeding to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon the petitioner in the course of an administrative proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a against Alfred Hankins, a tenured teacher, the teacher appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), which granted the motion to quash the subpoena.
James R. Sandner, New York, N.Y. (Gregory L. Hawthorne of counsel), for appellant.
Chad A. Vignola, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A subpoena duces tecum may not be used for purposes of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence (see Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; Fabbricatore v. Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist., 259 A.D.2d 656; Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. Town of Babylon, 239 A.D.2d 568; People v. Warden of the Queens House of Detention, 175 A.D.2d 821). The purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is to compel the production of documents that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a pending judicial proceeding (see Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042). Here, the appellant sought to discover the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the students in the class on the day or days when his misconduct allegedly occurred. Accordingly, the subpoena was properly quashed.
In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant's remaining contentions.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.