Since the Police Department was not a party to the underlying criminal action, it may properly appeal from the order denying the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum (Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314;Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena, 111 A.D.2d 891, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 606).
The motion court erroneously denied the Police Department`s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum since defendant failed to put forth a factual predicate to support the contention that the documents sought in the subpoena will bear relevant and exculpatory evidence (Matter of Constantine v. Leto, 157 A.D.2d 376, affd for reasons stated 77 N.Y.2d 975;People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543). Without the factual predicate, defendant's subpoena merely constitutes a discovery demand directed to a non-party, which is in contravention to the discovery provisions of CPL Article 240.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.