In the matter of the Application of Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York v. The Temple of the Lost Sheep, Inc., et al.

New York City, New York criminal defense lawyers represented defendant objecting to the production of documents.





It is well settled that one who challenges a subpoena issued by the Attorney General, which is presumptively valid, has the burden of proof to establish the invalidity of the subpoena (see, Mtr. of Edge Ho Holding Corp. v. Higgins, 256 N.Y. 374, 176 N.E. 537) and both Mackey and the Temple have failed to sustain that burden.





Respondents must therefore come forth, produce the documents and testify. To sustain a right to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege on the inquiry, it need only be evident from the implications of the question in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118.

Accordingly, that part of the motion by the Attorney General to compel Mackey's compliance with the investigative subpoena is granted and that branch of the Attorney General's motion directing TRW to comply with the subpoena served or to be served upon TRW is also granted pursuant to Gen. Business Law, § 380-b(a)(1) without opposition by Mackey. The cross-motion of Mackey and the Temple is denied in all respects and they are directed to comply with the subpoenas heretofore issued, within 30 days from the service of this decision and order with notice of entry.



The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.