Manhattan DA Vance, Responding to Trump Bid to Block Subpoenas, Says Case Shouldn't Be in Federal Court
The Manhattan DA urged the court not to grant Trump's emergency motion for an injunction, noting that federal courts must be careful not to interfere in state matters except when absolutely necessary.
September 23, 2019 at 05:21 PM
3 minute read
New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Photo: Rick Kopstein/ALM
New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. filed a response to President Donald Trump late Monday afternoon, contesting the forum of the proceedings and arguing that grand jury subpoenas delivered to Trump, his accounting firm and other associates are not bound by the same restrictions as a criminal investigation.
Vance has already agreed to stay the subpoenas until Wednesday afternoon, an agreement that came shortly after Trump filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York arguing that the subpoenas are a politically motivated attack designed to interfere with the power of the presidency.
But in Monday's filing, the Manhattan DA urged the court not to grant Trump's emergency motion for an injunction, noting that federal courts must be careful not to interfere in state matters except when absolutely necessary.
Vance is reportedly investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business reports, which is a crime in New York. Another subpoena from Vance's office demanded information about payments made to two women who said they had sexual relationships with Trump in the 2000s, which the president has denied.
Marc Mukasey of Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff said he and the rest of Trump's legal team will respond to Vance in writing Tuesday.
A hearing in the courtroom of U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York is set for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Arguing for dismissal of the entire case along with the rejection of Trump's emergency motion, Carey Dunne, general counsel of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, wrote in Monday's memo that Trump has not shown he'll suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.
For one thing, Dunne wrote, any financial information obtained through a grand jury subpoena would be confidential to the DA's office. He called the idea that the DA's office is trying to expose Trump's financial information "purely speculative and, frankly, outrageous," saying Trump is trying to invent a new presidential privilege around tax return privacy.
Dunne argued that Trump has not proven that sitting presidents and their associates are immune from criminal prosecutions. Even if he had, Dunne wrote, the grand jury subpoenas would still be valid.
"The question is not whether a state prosecutor can indict a sitting President," Dunne wrote, but whether Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, must comply with Vance's subpoena.
Dunne challenged several assumptions he said Trump made in his filings, writing that it isn't clear whether the Mazars subpoena will ever lead to prosecution of anyone, whether the grand jury would return an indictment on that information and whether any indictment would name Trump.
READ MORE:
Trump Calls Investigation From Manhattan DA Vance Unconstitutional in Newly Unsealed Complaint
SDNY Judge Clears Way for Class Action Alleging Trump Corporation Pushed Bad Investments
NY Agency Issues Subpoena to Trump Organization's Insurance Broker
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute read
Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
Trending Stories
- 1NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
- 2Whether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
- 3Am Law 200 Firms Announce Wave of D.C. Hires in White-Collar, Antitrust, Litigation Practices
- 4K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
- 5'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
