Submitted November 5, 1984
Decided February 7, 1985
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Frederick D. Dugan, J., Myron E. Tillman, J.
John W. Park, County Attorney, for appellant.
James T. Hancock for respondent.
The motion for leave to appeal should be dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine an action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The orders which granted motions for subpoenas duces tecum in connection with arbitrations are orders which merely administer the course of the arbitrations and such orders are not final ( see, e.g., Matter of Howell v New York City Human Resources Admin., 97 A.D.2d 352, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 758 [order directing compliance with subpoenas duces tecum to produce records before an arbitrator]; Matter of Camacho v Iafrate, 66 A.D.2d 779, lv dismissed 46 N.Y.2d 897 [order granting discovery of records for use at arbitration]).
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed in a memorandum.