# Board of Education v. Hankins

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 2002 · 294 A.D.2d 360

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6085346

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Board of Education of City of New York v. Alfred Hankins
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** May 6, 2002
- **Citations:** 294 A.D.2d 360; 741 N.Y.S.2d 717; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6085346

## Opinion text

—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.
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 NY2d 1042 ; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 ; Fabbricatore v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist, 259 AD2d 656 ; Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Town of Babylon, 239 AD2d 568 ; People ex rel. Martone v Warden of Queens House of Detention, 175 AD2d 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 NY2d 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 appel *361 lant’s remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Gold-stein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6085346. Public record. Not legal advice.