Grand Jury Subpoena Won't Start 'Parade of Horribles:' Manhattan Prosecutors Seeks Dismissal of Trump Challenge
Carey Dunne, general counsel in the DA's office, argued that Trump will not be harmed by the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA, despite his claims and urgent motions to the contrary.
October 15, 2019 at 05:22 PM
3 minute read
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.
In a brief filed late Tuesday, lawyers from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should affirm the dismissal of a suit from President Donald Trump, who is seeking to avoid a grand jury subpoena from the DA's office for his tax returns.
Carey Dunne, general counsel in the DA's office, wrote that U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero was correct in his Oct. 7 ruling that federal courts should stay out of a debate over a state subpoena. He went on to argue that Trump will not be harmed by the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA, despite his claims and urgent motions to the contrary.
"Lacking any cognizable legal basis to challenge the Mazars Subpoena, (Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice) resort to specious assertions that a parade of horribles will follow from enforcement," Dunne wrote.
Trump's attorney William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy filed two motions Tuesday morning, asking for stays in case he loses in the Second Circuit and needs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Those motions both rested on the idea that Trump will be subject to "irreparable harm" if the subpoena is enforced. Dunne attacked that idea in his brief Tuesday afternoon, writing that grand jury proceedings are secret and, since Trump has filed state and federal tax forms, he has already disclosed his tax information to government authorities with secrecy obligations.
Time is of the essence for the DA's office, Dunne wrote in an echo of previous arguments, because statutes of limitations are at risk of running out in the associated investigation. The exact matter under investigation has not been publicly discussed, but Dunne argued that delay itself is Trump's goal.
"Of course, in this situation, litigation delays — when accompanied by continued stays of subpoena compliance — mean that Trump will prevail in his ultimate goal of preventing disclosure of the records at issue until after the statutes of limitation expire, even if he does not ultimately prevail on the merits of his extravagant legal claim," Dunne wrote.
Dunne wrote that Trump has not been indicted, arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned, and any claim that he's immune from those actions is not yet ripe. Releasing tax returns should not take up much time, Dunne wrote, noting that previous presidents did so for decades.
Trump's lawyers have said many state prosecutors are likely to investigate the president if courts find that Vance can do it. Dunne responded by pointing out that Trump lived and worked in New York for years, so New York has more reason than other states to initiate investigations.
Trump's reply brief is due at 5 p.m. Thursday, and arguments are set for Oct. 23 in the Second Circuit.
Read more:
In Case 2nd Circuit Rules Against Him, Trump Asks for Extended Stay in Tax Return Subpoena Case
US Judge Dismisses Trump Challenge to Subpoena of Tax Returns; 2nd Circuit Gets Immediate Appeal
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
After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
7 minute read
US Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute read
Government Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Court Rejects San Francisco's Challenge to Robotaxi Licenses
- 2'Be Prepared and Practice': Paul Hastings' Michelle Reed Breaks Down Firm's First SEC Cybersecurity Incident Disclosure Report
- 3Lina Khan Gives Up the Gavel After Contentious 4 Years as FTC Chair
- 4Allstate Is Using Cell Phone Data to Raise Prices, Attorney General Claims
- 5Epiq Announces AI Discovery Assistant, Initially Developed by Laer AI, With Help From Sullivan & Cromwell
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.
